| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 01 2014 05:37 Nyxisto wrote: As the spokesperson of the UN, and as the UN being the generally acknowledged body that represents international law.. I guess the answer is yes? So you're just guessing that it was illegal. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 01 2014 05:36 bookwyrm wrote: There's no such thing as international legality Not to anarchists. But to the rest of the civilized world, yes, there is. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 01 2014 05:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote: So you're just guessing that it was illegal. No you're just talking out of your ass. If the UN secretary general came to the conclusion the war was illegal. the US didn't have the majority they needed, the evidence Powell put forward was fabricated. Everything about it was a giant joke. This is what Powell himself said 2005 : "I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid. April 3, 2004 I feel terrible ... [giving the speech] ... It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now. Sep 8, 2005" If you have any higher authority at hand that represents international law then post them. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On September 01 2014 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: 200K dead doesn't change that fact that the war was arguably a completely legal war. We were not at a state of peace with Iraq. We had a legal military presence in Iraq. Iraq and US forces were shooting at each other regularly, for a decade before the war started. To call it illegal as if that's a given is just wrong. Yes the cold war was messy, but... it was the Cold War and the US was allied with Western Europe. The dirtier things we did was in cohort with you. As for Cuba, Cuban refugees lobby pretty hard for the US to oppose what they see as a totalitarian dictatorship and the history of the Cuban missile crisis gives most American no desire to make friendly with Cuba. Who says "it's all about values?" Saudi Arabia is a long-time, cooperative ally of the US. They have a lot of economic ties to the US via oil and a lot of social ties via education (many Saudis are educated in the US). Iraq goes back to the early eighties when a relatively newly appointed Saddam Hussein got a lot of support from USA against Iran. Another time, another world and a dictator USA let stay in power and the problems that lead to. Cuban refugees will inevitably have a representation bias. Cuba is changing at the moment, though it is still a timeloop of the 1950s and a problematically run country, like basically all of latin america. Saudi Arabia is a case of common interests given the Texas tea. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 01 2014 05:48 Nyxisto wrote: No you're just talking out of your ass. If the UN secretary general came to the conclusion the war was illegal. the US didn't have the majority they needed, the evidence Powell put forward was fabricated. Everything about it was a giant joke. This is what Powell himself said 2005 : "I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid. April 3, 2004 I feel terrible ... [giving the speech] ... It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now. Sep 8, 2005" If you have any higher authority at hand that represents international law then post them. Sorry, but you just admitted that you're talking out of your ass. You're guessing that Annan had the authority to declare a war illegal and that such a declaration would be meaningful. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 01 2014 05:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Sorry, but you just admitted that you're talking out of your ass. You're guessing that Annan had the authority to declare a war illegal and that such a declaration would be meaningful. No, I'm not guessing, he has. He represents/represented the UN. If he makes that statement it's the most binding statement you'll get as far as international law goes. Not to mention that there was no UN mandate and security council members like France,China and Russia announced to veto any kind of resolution that would warrant a war. "In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast 'no' votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it.[1] Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
He has what? Complained to the BBC that there should have been another vote? Edit From Resolution 1441 (2002): Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, Link Also, they were shooting at our military, our military was shooting back, and I'm pretty sure that bit was legal. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On September 01 2014 05:43 aksfjh wrote: Not to anarchists. But to the rest of the civilized world, yes, there is. Haha pretty sure I'm not an anarchist. what is this supposed international law based on? What's the legislative body that makes this law? Under what principle does it have jurisdiction over the world? What's the judicial power with the authority to interpret this law, and the executive which enforces it. The UN doesn't cut it (and 'WW2 victor' is a pretty shitty criterion for being 'international lawgiver') It just doesn't exist. Talk about 'illegal wars' is just a thin secular gloss over the concept of a 'just war', which is just not a legalistic concept but a religious one. You might believe that there are standards by which 'civilized' countries should conduct themselves, but that's a far cry from 'international law' my claim is not that there shouldn't be international law, just that there in fact is no such thing | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
The world before WW II and WW I was very different from how it is now, the idea of a supranational institutions didn't even really exist. So maybe 'international law' is inaccurate in the legal sense, but there surely is an international 'code of conduct' now that has changed things immensely. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
I thought the law of the jungle got abolished with westphalia. Or maybe they were just lying to themselves then also :p | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
For Their Own Good? New Curfew Sends Baltimore Kids Home Early Young people in Baltimore are adjusting to life under a tougher curfew law. For 20 years, the city has required kids to be inside at night during the summer — but now, children younger than 14 must be in by 9 p.m. every night of the year. ... Link Seems excessive, but the nanny state knows best... | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
Agreed. The definition of guilty until proven innocent. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
(Reuters) - The bald eagle may no longer be extinct, but the U.S. effort to protect the national bird became harder on Wednesday. A federal appeals court revived a religion-based challenge to a U.S. regulation that allows only members of Indian tribes recognized by the government to possess the birds' feathers, so long as they first obtain permits. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Department of the Interior did not show the regulation was the "least restrictive means" to advance the compelling government interest in protecting the bald eagle because of its status as a national symbol. Wednesday's decision reversed a lower court ruling, and revived claims by Texas-based groups and individuals, including the McAllen Grace Brethren Church, that the regulation violated their rights under the First Amendment's free exercise clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The U.S. Department of Justice, which handled the case for the Interior Department, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Milo Colton, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to a similar request. Source | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
on this argentine business, it's kind of impossible for a u.s. court to come to a conclusion against the bondholders. the way they arrive at any conclusion is constrained by the precedent making system in the u.s. how do you even start with building a doctrine that allows argentina to get off the hook on this one. maybe more case specific info will help with it but on the surface it looks like a hard conclusion to make a rule consistent decision over. if they decide for argentina then whatever legal rule they used will be applicable to other, similar cases. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, is facing a military commission at Guantanamo Bay and potentially the death penalty. He was captured in 2003 but his case still hasn't gone to trial. Last week, Maj. Jason Wright — one of the lawyers defending Mohammed — resigned from the Army. He has accused the U.S. government of "abhorrent leadership" on human rights and due process guarantees and says it is crafting a "show trial." Wright joined the military in 2005. He served 15 months in Iraq during the surge and has worked as a Judge Advocate. For nearly three years, he served on Mohammed's defense team. Wright formally resigned on Aug. 26. Earlier this year, the Army had instructed him to leave the team in order to complete a graduate course that was required with his promotion from Captain to Major. He refused the order; he says it would have been unethical for him to have followed it. Source | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
The irony is that if you're going to complain, the way Obama has conducted the War on Terror is in grayer territory than it ever was under Bush. And that's just the US - China establishing the ADIZ and bullying its neighbors, Putin annexing Crimea, Syria's civil war, broken ceasefires between Israel and Gaza, and almost everything about ISIS are much more illegal than the US occupation of Iraq...and this is all in the last year. It's a strange line of logic to go down if you're looking to make the world a more accountable place. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
Eg: Chinese ADIZ escalates tensions over disputed islands and the Iraq troop surge. Really? Your going to make that absurd comparison? | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On September 01 2014 16:44 ShadeR wrote: I think you're playing games with the word illegal and are drawing quite frankly ridiculous parallels. Eg: Chinese ADIZ escalates tensions over disputed islands and the Iraq troop surge. Really? Your going to make that absurd comparison? Is that more or less absurd than comparing the Iraq troop surge to Argentina's default? | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
Link ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/F6ydGsgl.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nD7tizMl.png) Note that methodology only includes property damage claims by those insured by Allstate, the 3rd largest car insurer in the US covering about 10% of the market. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 01 2014 15:57 coverpunch wrote: The war in Iraq was not illegal. It's very gray in places and of course many things were wrong with the premise and conduct of the war, but it never broke international or US laws. At the time there were two ways to legally go to war with Iraq. 1)The old resolution 1441 which stated that measures can be taken against Iraq if it fails do disarm, but it was repeatedly stated that this resolution does not contain a "hidden trigger" meaning that Iraq's failure to comply would not automatically grant countries the right to go to war. 2) A security council resolution which needed a 9/15 majority, which the US didn't get. So the US argued that going to war is legitimate because the threat of WMD's is imminent and that based on resolution 1441 they could attack Iraq. Not only did they make that shit up, but as stated above a declaration of war would have needed an approval by the security council. So no, there is no grey area when it comes to the legality of the Iraq war. This is why Annan said "the war was illegal" and not "you know that is a really greyish area" | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g6144 Liquid`RaSZi1828 Beastyqt581 shahzam542 C9.Mang0155 KnowMe134 Trikslyr44 NeuroSwarm43 ViBE43 Mew2King39 JuggernautJason22 |
|
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
AI Arena Tournament
GSL
Yamato Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Jaedong
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
