|
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. |
On September 02 2014 09:28 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote: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.
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. ... 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. This is the heart of the debate, because if the US sincerely believed it, it would be legal. The decision took months of debate and 1441 was clearly not used on a "trigger". Unfortunately nobody has been able to prove that the Bush administration presented information that it knew to be false, which is what you would need to call something illegal in court. At this point, nobody is even bothering to try, so the issue is closed as a matter of law. It was legal.
There were no WMD's. So if you say you have lab evidence for it, which the US did, and it turned out not to be the case you must have made it up. Powell himself said that it was the biggest embarrassment of his career. There is nothing legal about it. The US wanted to go to war, had no security council resolution and made up stuff about dangerous weapons.
Also regarding nuclear waste:
You can't shoot nuclear waste into space. Spaceships are so unsafe (statistically it's estimated that 1 or 2/100 blow up) that you'd have nuclear waste raining down into the atmosphere at a very alarming rate.
|
Being wrong is different from being illegal, and nothing you're saying crosses that distinction. It isn't okay that US intelligence botched things so badly and that the Bush administration cherry-picked what it wanted to hear, but it doesn't rise to illegality.
But if you're so insistent, I'm not sure why you're not complaining just as loudly about the Obama administration's use of drones, which relies on even flimsier evidence. They've been at least as blind to civilian casualties, still insisting they've only caused a handful, maybe a single digit's worth, of collateral deaths.
|
On September 02 2014 09:28 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote: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.
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. ... 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. This is the heart of the debate, because if the US sincerely believed it, it would be legal. The decision took months of debate and 1441 was clearly not used on a "trigger". Unfortunately nobody has been able to prove that the Bush administration presented information that it knew to be false, which is what you would need to call something illegal in court. At this point, nobody is even bothering to try, so the issue is closed as a matter of law. It was legal.
What? Preventive war is illegal regardless of whether the perpetrator lied or not.
|
On September 02 2014 09:55 coverpunch wrote:
Being wrong is different from being illegal, and nothing you're saying crosses that distinction. It isn't okay that US intelligence botched things so badly and that the Bush administration cherry-picked what it wanted to hear, but it doesn't rise to illegality.
But if you're so insistent, I'm not sure why you're not complaining just as loudly about the Obama administration's use of drones, which relies on even flimsier evidence. They've been at least as blind to civilian casualties, still insisting they've only caused a handful, maybe a single digit's worth, of collateral deaths.
The legality of drones is a little more difficult because there is no real precedence and I'm not even sure if they belong into the 'war' category. Also the number of casualties of about a few thousand people is only a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of people that died because of the wars. I don't think there has ever been a definite statement by the UN about the legality of drones.
|
On September 02 2014 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 06:22 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 05:21 Danglars wrote:On September 01 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. ... LinkSeems excessive, but the nanny state knows best... Those poor high school kids and parents trying to do sports teams and extracurriculars. Nanny state does know best, and don't you dare question it. What an excellent use of police time as well. It's funny to me that you associate this conservative effort at population control (let's try and keep young black and impoverished kids off the streets so they don't associate with gangs and ruffians) with the monolithic mythical leftist project of the Nanny State. Sounds more like echoes of Ferguson than some socialist Nanny State plot. A curfew in place also prevents parents who are protesting from being out late since they can't bring their kids with them and probably can't afford a sitter to protest. How do you figure conservatives are involved? Baltimore, along with St. Louis (and Ferguson) are all liberal cities. Most cities in the US are liberal really...
Oh the label people use to describe themselves is the totality of their political character now? Ferguson police militarization is, in its essence, liberal? Ferguson's mayor is a republican, and most members of the police force throughout the country harbor conservative tendencies. I'm not going to play the stupid game you seem to be getting at of tallying which politicians identify as Democrat or Republican and/or guessing who was responsible for what measure on the city council. But if you think that these things are essentially "liberal" as opposed to conservative you would seem to have a warped view of what actually constitutes each, including the motivations and leanings of people who identify as either one or the other.
|
On September 02 2014 09:59 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 09:28 coverpunch wrote:On September 02 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote: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.
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. ... 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. This is the heart of the debate, because if the US sincerely believed it, it would be legal. The decision took months of debate and 1441 was clearly not used on a "trigger". Unfortunately nobody has been able to prove that the Bush administration presented information that it knew to be false, which is what you would need to call something illegal in court. At this point, nobody is even bothering to try, so the issue is closed as a matter of law. It was legal. What? Preventive war is illegal regardless of whether the perpetrator lied or not.
I'm still trying to figure out why people are discussing whether what the Bush administration did was "legal" as if it actually meant something. International law is a pretty big joke in the grand scheme of things. There are at least half a dozen active conflicts going on right now where atrocities or other "illegalities" are being committed. I don't see any of these perpetrators quaking with fear over the consequences of international law.
|
On September 02 2014 10:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 09:59 Mindcrime wrote:On September 02 2014 09:28 coverpunch wrote:On September 02 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote: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.
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. ... 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. This is the heart of the debate, because if the US sincerely believed it, it would be legal. The decision took months of debate and 1441 was clearly not used on a "trigger". Unfortunately nobody has been able to prove that the Bush administration presented information that it knew to be false, which is what you would need to call something illegal in court. At this point, nobody is even bothering to try, so the issue is closed as a matter of law. It was legal. What? Preventive war is illegal regardless of whether the perpetrator lied or not. I'm still trying to figure out why people are discussing whether what the Bush administration did was "legal" as if it actually meant something. International law is a pretty big joke in the grand scheme of things. There are at least half a dozen active conflicts going on right now where atrocities or other "illegalities" are being committed. I don't see any of these perpetrators quaking with fear over the consequences of international law.
...because some people who live in democracies value the concept of justice and would like to see it extended to the international sphere? I am sure Slobo Milosevic wasnt quaking in his boots when his troops were raping their way to 'greater serbia' but in the end he died in a dutch prison cell. I dont see how you can have a problem with that, as a lawyer especially.
|
On September 02 2014 11:16 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 10:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 02 2014 09:59 Mindcrime wrote:On September 02 2014 09:28 coverpunch wrote:On September 02 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote: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.
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. ... 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. This is the heart of the debate, because if the US sincerely believed it, it would be legal. The decision took months of debate and 1441 was clearly not used on a "trigger". Unfortunately nobody has been able to prove that the Bush administration presented information that it knew to be false, which is what you would need to call something illegal in court. At this point, nobody is even bothering to try, so the issue is closed as a matter of law. It was legal. What? Preventive war is illegal regardless of whether the perpetrator lied or not. I'm still trying to figure out why people are discussing whether what the Bush administration did was "legal" as if it actually meant something. International law is a pretty big joke in the grand scheme of things. There are at least half a dozen active conflicts going on right now where atrocities or other "illegalities" are being committed. I don't see any of these perpetrators quaking with fear over the consequences of international law. ...because some people who live in democracies value the concept of justice and would like to see it extended to the international sphere? I am sure Slobo Milosevic wasnt quaking in his boots when his troops were raping their way to 'greater serbia' but in the end he died in a dutch prison cell. I dont see how you can have a problem with that, as a lawyer especially.
Right, and it is all just mental masturbation until people are actually willing to enforce justice. The problem is that the people who appeal international law tend to be the same ones who are reluctant to develop and exercise the means to enforce it.
|
On September 02 2014 10:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 09:59 Mindcrime wrote:On September 02 2014 09:28 coverpunch wrote:On September 02 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote: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.
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. ... 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. This is the heart of the debate, because if the US sincerely believed it, it would be legal. The decision took months of debate and 1441 was clearly not used on a "trigger". Unfortunately nobody has been able to prove that the Bush administration presented information that it knew to be false, which is what you would need to call something illegal in court. At this point, nobody is even bothering to try, so the issue is closed as a matter of law. It was legal. What? Preventive war is illegal regardless of whether the perpetrator lied or not. I'm still trying to figure out why people are discussing whether what the Bush administration did was "legal" as if it actually meant something. International law is a pretty big joke in the grand scheme of things. There are at least half a dozen active conflicts going on right now where atrocities or other "illegalities" are being committed. I don't see any of these perpetrators quaking with fear over the consequences of international law.
I think it is important to discuss, and it is the kind of thing we are really missing when the rules are being trampled and rewritten around the world with regional crises. But it is true that the dirty little secret of international law is that the rules are only so strong as any individual country's ability to defend themselves. We shouldn't let that stray too far into "might makes right" as a principle.
|
On September 02 2014 10:45 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 02 2014 06:22 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 05:21 Danglars wrote:On September 01 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. ... LinkSeems excessive, but the nanny state knows best... Those poor high school kids and parents trying to do sports teams and extracurriculars. Nanny state does know best, and don't you dare question it. What an excellent use of police time as well. It's funny to me that you associate this conservative effort at population control (let's try and keep young black and impoverished kids off the streets so they don't associate with gangs and ruffians) with the monolithic mythical leftist project of the Nanny State. Sounds more like echoes of Ferguson than some socialist Nanny State plot. A curfew in place also prevents parents who are protesting from being out late since they can't bring their kids with them and probably can't afford a sitter to protest. How do you figure conservatives are involved? Baltimore, along with St. Louis (and Ferguson) are all liberal cities. Most cities in the US are liberal really... Oh the label people use to describe themselves is the totality of their political character now? Ferguson police militarization is, in its essence, liberal? Ferguson's mayor is a republican, and most members of the police force throughout the country harbor conservative tendencies. I'm not going to play the stupid game you seem to be getting at of tallying which politicians identify as Democrat or Republican and/or guessing who was responsible for what measure on the city council. But if you think that these things are essentially "liberal" as opposed to conservative you would seem to have a warped view of what actually constitutes each, including the motivations and leanings of people who identify as either one or the other.
No, if you look at voting patterns and polling patterns, cities tend to be liberal. Is that really a surprising statement to you?
If you want, here's a chart from a recent study on it:
+ Show Spoiler +
Link
|
On September 02 2014 12:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 10:45 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 02 2014 06:22 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2014 05:21 Danglars wrote:On September 01 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. ... LinkSeems excessive, but the nanny state knows best... Those poor high school kids and parents trying to do sports teams and extracurriculars. Nanny state does know best, and don't you dare question it. What an excellent use of police time as well. It's funny to me that you associate this conservative effort at population control (let's try and keep young black and impoverished kids off the streets so they don't associate with gangs and ruffians) with the monolithic mythical leftist project of the Nanny State. Sounds more like echoes of Ferguson than some socialist Nanny State plot. A curfew in place also prevents parents who are protesting from being out late since they can't bring their kids with them and probably can't afford a sitter to protest. How do you figure conservatives are involved? Baltimore, along with St. Louis (and Ferguson) are all liberal cities. Most cities in the US are liberal really... Oh the label people use to describe themselves is the totality of their political character now? Ferguson police militarization is, in its essence, liberal? Ferguson's mayor is a republican, and most members of the police force throughout the country harbor conservative tendencies. I'm not going to play the stupid game you seem to be getting at of tallying which politicians identify as Democrat or Republican and/or guessing who was responsible for what measure on the city council. But if you think that these things are essentially "liberal" as opposed to conservative you would seem to have a warped view of what actually constitutes each, including the motivations and leanings of people who identify as either one or the other. No, if you look at voting patterns and polling patterns, cities tend to be liberal. Is that really a surprising statement to you? If you want, here's a chart from a recent study on it: + Show Spoiler +Link
No, that's not what I'm talking about at all.
|
Regardless of the political spectra of most cities in this country, they're almost unanimously authoritarian hell-holes. The larger the city, the greater degree of authoritarianism. Take NYC for example. The amount of social engineering is beyond shocking, never mind the level of power of the political class and the subsequent corruption that always follows. It's no surprise that Baltimore (one of the most authoritarian cities in the country, and thus, extremely corrupt) would institute something like this. Anyways, as a public broadcast anouncement from your benevolent angels in Government - give us your liberties, for ISIS shall kill you if you do not! Cower in fear! God, my countryman are so gullible and cowardly for how much of this non-sense I've had to read in the past two weeks. (Never mind we armed ISIS in Syria ourselves...another point for the brilliance of those in the political class to artificially manufacture their continued power grabs and money grabs on behalf of the MIC)
|
Other than the city's recent adoption of a youth curfew, how is it that you've come to deem Baltimore "one of the most authoritarian cities in the country?" Have you not seen what Ray Rice has gotten away with?
|
Or, for those who forget, the fascist lockdown of Boston following the marathon bombing. I suppose that's a "liberal" Nanny State enactment too.
Edit: I don't know that Ray Rice is a good example. Even the most principled authoritarians tend not to tear down their idols unless they have to. Ray Rice is Baltimore. He would get worse publicity for dissing the city on his way out than he would for knocking his wife out.
|
On September 02 2014 11:33 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 10:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 02 2014 09:59 Mindcrime wrote:On September 02 2014 09:28 coverpunch wrote:On September 02 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote: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.
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. ... 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. This is the heart of the debate, because if the US sincerely believed it, it would be legal. The decision took months of debate and 1441 was clearly not used on a "trigger". Unfortunately nobody has been able to prove that the Bush administration presented information that it knew to be false, which is what you would need to call something illegal in court. At this point, nobody is even bothering to try, so the issue is closed as a matter of law. It was legal. What? Preventive war is illegal regardless of whether the perpetrator lied or not. I'm still trying to figure out why people are discussing whether what the Bush administration did was "legal" as if it actually meant something. International law is a pretty big joke in the grand scheme of things. There are at least half a dozen active conflicts going on right now where atrocities or other "illegalities" are being committed. I don't see any of these perpetrators quaking with fear over the consequences of international law. I think it is important to discuss, and it is the kind of thing we are really missing when the rules are being trampled and rewritten around the world with regional crises. But it is true that the dirty little secret of international law is that the rules are only so strong as any individual country's ability to defend themselves. We shouldn't let that stray too far into "might makes right" as a principle.
Well don't think if/when we ever encounter aliens and they bother to tell us why they are enslaving/destroying/conquering our planet they won't point at how our world governed itself, not just individual nations.
They will see how we governed ourselves every time we discovered a new part of our world (and what we do to the moon and Mars) and they will naturally expect that to be how we would treat a intergalactic community.
Let's just say we won't have much of a leg to stand on as a global community.
Of course they could just be tyrannical dickheads like humanity has been for most of it's (written) history and our righteousness or lack thereof will be irrelevant anyway. Which is what I presume the people who advocate showing little restraint in domination of ones enemies presume to be the most likely outcome anyway.
The same argument can be made about a future 50, 100, 1000 years in the future when the US is clearly not the dominant nation in the world and other nations point to US policy of the recent past and near future as justification for whatever colonial goals the new leaders have.
Sometimes I wonder which is harder for some Americans to fathom, a superior (technologically at least) alien race that cares about our governance and would ever offer us a place in an inter/galactic community. Or a world where the US isn't the most powerful country in the world and the new countries justify BS policy with some of our historical gems.
Whatever the case it's better that we try to have some semblance of just international law than to have nothing at all.
|
Cant we all agree that given the chance, both conservatives and liberals will pull authoritarian bullshit?
|
On September 02 2014 12:58 IgnE wrote:
Or, for those who forget, the fascist lockdown of Boston following the marathon bombing. I suppose that's a "liberal" Nanny State enactment too.
Edit: I don't know that Ray Rice is a good example. Even the most principled authoritarians tend not to tear down their idols unless they have to. Ray Rice is Baltimore. He would get worse publicity for dissing the city on his way out than he would for knocking his wife out.
It's a liberal state and...
SPRINGFIELD — Ninety-one percent of Massachusetts residents agree with the decision to lock down parts of Greater Boston while looking for the second Boston Marathon bombing suspect April 19 and 86 percent have a favorable opinion of the state police's handling of the case, according to survey results released Tuesday morning by The MassInc Polling Group.
Link
... virtually everyone was happy that they had public servants to protect them in a time of need. Myself included - I have some friends who live near Boston and wanted them safe.
|
And 86 percent of Bostonians also probably wear those Boston Strong™ tshirts.
The fact that it's a liberal state is irrelevant. Even liberals have conservative impulses. When the populace is being bombarded with 24/7 scare news it's not surprising that most of the ostensibly liberal white people who feel threatened approve of the lockdown. An 86% approval rating doesn't not make it a fascist lockdown that is very frightening for anyone who truly cares about freedom. I know you are trying to tie in your personal experience here, but for someone who loves to look at economist-approved statistics, the irrational fear is strong in you. Locking down a city of almost a million to search for two amateur terrorists who had spent their wad is more than just an overreaction. It's a dangerous precedent.
|
On September 02 2014 13:38 IgnE wrote:
And 86 percent of Bostonians also probably wear those Boston Strong™ tshirts.
The fact that it's a liberal state is irrelevant. Even liberals have conservative impulses. When the populace is being bombarded with 24/7 scare news it's not surprising that most of the ostensibly liberal white people who feel threatened approve of the lockdown. An 86% approval rating doesn't not make it a fascist lockdown that is very frightening for anyone who truly cares about freedom. I know you are trying to tie in your personal experience here, but for someone who loves to look at economist-approved statistics, the irrational fear is strong in you. Locking down a city of almost a million to search for two amateur terrorists who had spent their wad is more than just an overreaction. It's a dangerous precedent.
Well the hundreds of shots fired (about 10 from the actual terrorists) and plenty of other aspects speak to the scary nature of such responses too.
|
On September 02 2014 13:38 IgnE wrote:
And 86 percent of Bostonians also probably wear those Boston Strong™ tshirts.
The fact that it's a liberal state is irrelevant. Even liberals have conservative impulses. When the populace is being bombarded with 24/7 scare news it's not surprising that most of the ostensibly liberal white people who feel threatened approve of the lockdown. An 86% approval rating doesn't not make it a fascist lockdown that is very frightening for anyone who truly cares about freedom. I know you are trying to tie in your personal experience here, but for someone who loves to look at economist-approved statistics, the irrational fear is strong in you. Locking down a city of almost a million to search for two amateur terrorists who had spent their wad is more than just an overreaction. It's a dangerous precedent.
A large number of people on the right opposed it to. And yet, some supported it. It's almost like it's not an "impulse." More like there are people with their own opinions!
Don't be silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/cities.PNG)
