Since the U.N. was officially established in 1945, there have been dozens of cases in which (fully sovereign) member states have attacked other (fully sovereign) member states, without asking the U.N. for any authorisation.
Good guys as well as bad guys still have the right to fight each other.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Not without a valid reason. Sorry.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's your opinion, dependent on what you deem valid.
Fact is that U.N. member states have been known to fight each other since 1945, for reasons they might have deemed valid, or not.
Diplomacy and war are no examples of gentlemanly sportsmanship.
[quote]Now, I'm no legal expert for international treaties, conventions, or concordats. But if the U.S.A. is currently in any breach of any of its signed commitments, why don't you sue them on that caps locked court you mentioned? <hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>
Sue them? Don't you think they have enough financial difficulties?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's their problem.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>Edited for exhausted intemperate langauge ( ihaven't slept properly in weeks)</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL! XXX OOO
[quote]Originally posted by Alex London:
<strong>Bunge, let's start over. I don't see the shields as defending democratic principles, you do. I agree they are using democratic principles and of course they should if they feel strongly about something, my point was thet they were not going to achieve much by going to a brutal dictatorship to defend democracy- which is probably why they're not staying. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Cool. I think we're all in agreement that they won't really accomplish anything, I just thought it was insane to start a thread like this.
You seem to agree that the shields should step up and do what they are/were doing since they feel strongly about it. Most people here see them with disdain simply because of ideological differences, not because the shields are doing something wrong.
I just thought that was kind of an ignorant position for most people here to take. Stand up for what you believe in, and that's what they're doing. To criticise that deserves criticism I think.
As for helping Saddam, I think it's obvious to anyone willing to have a legitimate discussion about this that they're trying to help ordinary Iraqi citizens, not the military. Hence, they're leaving because they're not being allowed to 'protect' the citizens.
Fact is that U.N. member states have been known to fight each other since 1945, for reasons they might have deemed valid, or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, and criminals get away with murder everyday. That doesn't make it legal.
Fact is that U.N. member states have been known to fight each other since 1945, for reasons they might have deemed valid, or not.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Yeah, and criminals get away with murder everyday. That doesn't make it legal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Murder is illegal.
War is legal.
When it comes to relations between sovereign states there is no frameowrk comparable to that of the law and order which exist between individuals within a sovereign state.
<strong>Killing is legal, under the right circumstances be it via tanks or otherwise.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Given that you talk of tanks and the such, it implies a combat situation. Killing between combatants, in a combat situation, is of course, legal, since war itself is legal.
[quote]<strong>Murder by definition is illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Murder, as legally defined by the laws of the country where it occurs, is illegal.
[quote]<strong>Illegitimate wars are, by definition, just as illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no universal legislature outlawing wars, or defining them as illegimate or not. There are treaties, conventions, charters, protocols, and other such official commitments, to which only the signatory states are bound to abide by. That's what is referred to by ?international law?.
But you keep apllying a false analogy equating international law between states, and the law of the land within a state.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
"There is no universal legislature outlawing wars, or defining them as illegimate or not. "
What part of that isn't sinking in with you??? Are you more worried about "tanks" or terms of legitimacy? Quit jumping around when you get cornered, and just face the music for once. Honestly!...
<strong>Except that here in the United States, we are bound by our Constitution by the treaties we sign.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see, that is the ?We Are Oh So Special And Unique?(1) clause, which many of your countrymen fancy.
There are scores of other countries in the world outside your borders which are by their own internal legislations, bound to their signed international commitments. However, what seems to escape your attention, is the fact that there is no treaty, convention, or any other such international commitment outlawing war, to be found.
For the very simple reason that it would require an international legislative body with authority over the entire planet; which is not to be found either (well, until I and my co-conspirators take over this joint, that is).
[quote]<strong>Tanks don't make a war legal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, they just make it applicable. Without them it would be inapplicable yet still legal, like a toothless bulldog is still a bulldog.
(1) To which the standard answer is often: ?But of course you're special and unique! Just like all the other kids of the world?.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
Wow, this thread certainly took off. I am glad to see that people are concerned about this. I just wish that they could understand the reason i actually posted it. It is not because I hope to see more people killed. Not because I am for or against the war. It is because these people think that with their lives they can stop the UN army from doing a war the best way they know how. Destroy essential services, yes even those that are used by civilians, and demoralize the enemy so that they are more willing to surrender sooner. Just because some peace movement type has parked his dope smking butt (it is in the story, not made up) at a power plant does not mean that target becomes magically protected. If war happens he better be prepared to lose his life for what he thinks he believes in. I just do not think that many of these people live in the real world. And if they stay in Iraq, we may find that they will die in it. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
Well it appears you won't have to worry about it now that these human shields are doing a great impression of the gringo vamoose out of Iraq. FNC is having a field day over it- almost satirically.
<strong>There is no universal legislature outlawing wars, or defining them as illegimate or not. There are treaties, conventions, charters, protocols, and other such official commitments, to which only the signatory states are bound to abide by. That's what is referred to by ?international law?.
(...)
However, what seems to escape your attention, is the fact that there is no treaty, convention, or any other such international commitment outlawing war, to be found.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Firstly its doesn't require every state in the world to sign a treaty to call it international. Just as no democracy has a 100% of its people participate in its political processes. You logic is flawed to the extent that all your saying is that the few countries who haven't signed the UN Charter don't have to abide by it. The same logic used by; was the <a href="http://www.michiganmilitia.com/"; target="_blank">Michigan Militia?</a>
Secondly, they are more than treaties. They are the result of hundreds of years of evolution of democratic principles. With your immense historical knowledge I'm frankly surprised that you seem so ignorant of this. To say there is "no universal legislature" is totally irrelevant. All laws are in principle artificial constructions.
The aim of Public International Law has been to "elaborate instruments for settling crises peacefully, preventing wars and codifying rules of warfare." and like I said, this goes back over a hundred years.
It builds on the principles of national sovereignty. Found in many democratic constitutions, including the American and French.
Modern Public international law became more than just a set of treaties with the Nuremberg process. The international war tribunal set up at the end of WWII to deal with the crimes of the nazi-regime. Nuremberg was very much legislation. Ribbentrop was executed, Göring took his own life to avoid the same destiny.
The principles of Nuremberg made way for the <a href="http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html"; target="_blank">Universal declaration of Human Rights</a>, one of the key pillars of Public International Law.
Are you prepared to write of Human Rights as "protocols and charters"? You don't see it going deeper than that?
The framework for use of force in international law is laid down in the UN Charter, signed by all parties in this conflict. And described by the International Court of Justice. They are quite easy to find.
You need to be careful where you thread here, because this is about the principles of Nuremberg, and in a broader view of democracy itself.
By calling it "just a set treaties", you risk "throwing the baby out with the tub-water" so to speak.
<strong>Given that you talk of tanks and the such, it implies a combat situation. Killing between combatants, in a combat situation, is of course, legal, since war itself is legal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You give yourself away. define combatants, please.
Where would you go looking for the source material?
<strong>"There is no universal legislature outlawing wars, or defining them as illegimate or not. "
What part of that isn't sinking in with you??? </strong><hr></blockquote>
When did I say that wars are illegal? Never. That's called a straw-man argument. Immanuel is avoiding what I'm arguing and trying to redirect my point.
If war happens he better be prepared to lose his life for what he thinks he believes in. I just do not think that many of these people live in the real world. And if they stay in Iraq, we may find that they will die in it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe they are prepared for that. If people really thought it would stop the bombing there would be far more than 200 human shields going over there.
<strong>You give yourself away. define combatants, please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When you're a soldier participating in combat (that's where armed people are fighting each other, you know?), you're a combatant, and any armed person from the other side participating in the combat is a combatant too.
[quote]<strong>Where would you go looking for the source material?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>When you're a soldier participating in combat (that's where armed people are fighting each other, you know?), you're a combatant, and any armed person from the other side participating in the combat is a combatant too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
define soldier.
No, sorry, its just not that clear cut. the 200 people in Guantanamo are evidence of that. Apparently International Law is good enough to be used in classifying those guys as "illegal combatants". (correct term?)
[quote] Planet Earth would be a good start. <hr></blockquote>Then get down on it.
When did I say that wars are illegal? Never. That's called a straw-man argument. Immanuel is avoiding what I'm arguing and trying to redirect my point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only straw-man argument happening here is your method of distinguishing what is legitimate and what is illegitimate.
Comments
Since the U.N. was officially established in 1945, there have been dozens of cases in which (fully sovereign) member states have attacked other (fully sovereign) member states, without asking the U.N. for any authorisation.
Good guys as well as bad guys still have the right to fight each other.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Not without a valid reason. Sorry.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's your opinion, dependent on what you deem valid.
Fact is that U.N. member states have been known to fight each other since 1945, for reasons they might have deemed valid, or not.
Diplomacy and war are no examples of gentlemanly sportsmanship.
[quote]Now, I'm no legal expert for international treaties, conventions, or concordats. But if the U.S.A. is currently in any breach of any of its signed commitments, why don't you sue them on that caps locked court you mentioned? <hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>
Sue them? Don't you think they have enough financial difficulties?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's their problem.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>Edited for exhausted intemperate langauge ( ihaven't slept properly in weeks)</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL! XXX OOO
[quote]Originally posted by Alex London:
<strong>Bunge, let's start over. I don't see the shields as defending democratic principles, you do. I agree they are using democratic principles and of course they should if they feel strongly about something, my point was thet they were not going to achieve much by going to a brutal dictatorship to defend democracy- which is probably why they're not staying. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Cool. I think we're all in agreement that they won't really accomplish anything, I just thought it was insane to start a thread like this.
You seem to agree that the shields should step up and do what they are/were doing since they feel strongly about it. Most people here see them with disdain simply because of ideological differences, not because the shields are doing something wrong.
I just thought that was kind of an ignorant position for most people here to take. Stand up for what you believe in, and that's what they're doing. To criticise that deserves criticism I think.
As for helping Saddam, I think it's obvious to anyone willing to have a legitimate discussion about this that they're trying to help ordinary Iraqi citizens, not the military. Hence, they're leaving because they're not being allowed to 'protect' the citizens.
<strong>
Fact is that U.N. member states have been known to fight each other since 1945, for reasons they might have deemed valid, or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, and criminals get away with murder everyday. That doesn't make it legal.
Fact is that U.N. member states have been known to fight each other since 1945, for reasons they might have deemed valid, or not.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Yeah, and criminals get away with murder everyday. That doesn't make it legal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Murder is illegal.
War is legal.
When it comes to relations between sovereign states there is no frameowrk comparable to that of the law and order which exist between individuals within a sovereign state.
<strong>
Murder is illegal.
War is legal. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Killing is legal, under the right circumstances be it via tanks or otherwise.
Murder by definition is illegal. Illegitimate wars are, by definition, just as illegal.
Murder is illegal.
War is legal.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Killing is legal, under the right circumstances be it via tanks or otherwise.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Given that you talk of tanks and the such, it implies a combat situation. Killing between combatants, in a combat situation, is of course, legal, since war itself is legal.
[quote]<strong>Murder by definition is illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Murder, as legally defined by the laws of the country where it occurs, is illegal.
[quote]<strong>Illegitimate wars are, by definition, just as illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no universal legislature outlawing wars, or defining them as illegimate or not. There are treaties, conventions, charters, protocols, and other such official commitments, to which only the signatory states are bound to abide by. That's what is referred to by ?international law?.
But you keep apllying a false analogy equating international law between states, and the law of the land within a state.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>
But you keep apllying a false analogy equating international law between states, and the law of the land within a state. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Except that here in the United States, we are bound by our Constitution by the treaties we sign.
Tanks don't make a war legal.
What part of that isn't sinking in with you??? Are you more worried about "tanks" or terms of legitimacy? Quit jumping around when you get cornered, and just face the music for once. Honestly!...
<strong>Except that here in the United States, we are bound by our Constitution by the treaties we sign.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see, that is the ?We Are Oh So Special And Unique?(1) clause, which many of your countrymen fancy.
There are scores of other countries in the world outside your borders which are by their own internal legislations, bound to their signed international commitments. However, what seems to escape your attention, is the fact that there is no treaty, convention, or any other such international commitment outlawing war, to be found.
For the very simple reason that it would require an international legislative body with authority over the entire planet; which is not to be found either (well, until I and my co-conspirators take over this joint, that is).
[quote]<strong>Tanks don't make a war legal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, they just make it applicable. Without them it would be inapplicable yet still legal, like a toothless bulldog is still a bulldog.
(1) To which the standard answer is often: ?But of course you're special and unique! Just like all the other kids of the world?.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>There is no universal legislature outlawing wars, or defining them as illegimate or not. There are treaties, conventions, charters, protocols, and other such official commitments, to which only the signatory states are bound to abide by. That's what is referred to by ?international law?.
(...)
However, what seems to escape your attention, is the fact that there is no treaty, convention, or any other such international commitment outlawing war, to be found.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Firstly its doesn't require every state in the world to sign a treaty to call it international. Just as no democracy has a 100% of its people participate in its political processes. You logic is flawed to the extent that all your saying is that the few countries who haven't signed the UN Charter don't have to abide by it. The same logic used by; was the <a href="http://www.michiganmilitia.com/"; target="_blank">Michigan Militia?</a>
Secondly, they are more than treaties. They are the result of hundreds of years of evolution of democratic principles. With your immense historical knowledge I'm frankly surprised that you seem so ignorant of this. To say there is "no universal legislature" is totally irrelevant. All laws are in principle artificial constructions.
The aim of Public International Law has been to "elaborate instruments for settling crises peacefully, preventing wars and codifying rules of warfare." and like I said, this goes back over a hundred years.
It builds on the principles of national sovereignty. Found in many democratic constitutions, including the American and French.
Modern Public international law became more than just a set of treaties with the Nuremberg process. The international war tribunal set up at the end of WWII to deal with the crimes of the nazi-regime. Nuremberg was very much legislation. Ribbentrop was executed, Göring took his own life to avoid the same destiny.
The principles of Nuremberg made way for the <a href="http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html"; target="_blank">Universal declaration of Human Rights</a>, one of the key pillars of Public International Law.
Are you prepared to write of Human Rights as "protocols and charters"? You don't see it going deeper than that?
The framework for use of force in international law is laid down in the UN Charter, signed by all parties in this conflict. And described by the International Court of Justice. They are quite easy to find.
You need to be careful where you thread here, because this is about the principles of Nuremberg, and in a broader view of democracy itself.
By calling it "just a set treaties", you risk "throwing the baby out with the tub-water" so to speak.
<strong>Given that you talk of tanks and the such, it implies a combat situation. Killing between combatants, in a combat situation, is of course, legal, since war itself is legal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You give yourself away. define combatants, please.
Where would you go looking for the source material?
<strong>"There is no universal legislature outlawing wars, or defining them as illegimate or not. "
What part of that isn't sinking in with you??? </strong><hr></blockquote>
When did I say that wars are illegal? Never. That's called a straw-man argument. Immanuel is avoiding what I'm arguing and trying to redirect my point.
EDIT: Corrected spelling.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</p>
<strong>
If war happens he better be prepared to lose his life for what he thinks he believes in. I just do not think that many of these people live in the real world. And if they stay in Iraq, we may find that they will die in it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe they are prepared for that. If people really thought it would stop the bombing there would be far more than 200 human shields going over there.
<strong>
define combatants, please. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Human Shields? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>You give yourself away. define combatants, please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When you're a soldier participating in combat (that's where armed people are fighting each other, you know?), you're a combatant, and any armed person from the other side participating in the combat is a combatant too.
[quote]<strong>Where would you go looking for the source material?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Planet Earth would be a good start.
<strong>When you're a soldier participating in combat (that's where armed people are fighting each other, you know?), you're a combatant, and any armed person from the other side participating in the combat is a combatant too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
define soldier.
No, sorry, its just not that clear cut. the 200 people in Guantanamo are evidence of that. Apparently International Law is good enough to be used in classifying those guys as "illegal combatants". (correct term?)
[quote] Planet Earth would be a good start. <hr></blockquote>Then get down on it.
<strong>
When did I say that wars are illegal? Never. That's called a straw-man argument. Immanuel is avoiding what I'm arguing and trying to redirect my point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only straw-man argument happening here is your method of distinguishing what is legitimate and what is illegitimate.