Arrest warrent reward for condy rice
-
John Carson wrote:
It is simply false that the regime was illegal. The regime did in some respects act contrary to international laws, but that doesn't make it an illegal regime, any more than the fact that the US has so acted makes it an illegal regime. Declaring a regime illegal is a bigger deal than saying a regime acted illegally.
Not really - the Baathists took power in an overthrow. If you call the U.S. invasion "illegal" that that's (the overthrow) "illegal" too - even more so since the Baath party comes from Syria.
John Carson wrote:
One of the basic points of the UN is to get nations sitting at the same table, straight face or not. The main purpose of the UN is to prevent war. It is not, and never has been, to protect human rights within individual countries. It makes some efforts in that regard, but avoiding war generally takes precedence. At the end of the day, the UN is dependent on its member countries. It doesn't have its own independent army. I think of the UN as somewhat akin to the central government of Somalia. Somalia has a weak central government that only administers part of the country because the groups that make up Somalia can't agree to support a central government. For another analogy, go back far enough in the history of any country to when it was made up of warring tribes, without a central government. That is pretty much the international scene. But just as nations progressed when they developed a strong central government, so will the world progress. But that can't happen until there is sufficient similarity of viewpoint among the constituent parts. In the meantime, we hope that some minimal level of cooperation can be established, which means "playing by the rules". I don't say there are never cases where the rules should be broken, but it should not be done lightly.
The U.N. is a farce - Russia carries out state-sponsored assassinations in foreign countries and China silences dissidents amongst their other numerous and heinous human rights abuses. If that's the constituency of the governing body that pledges observance of the charter and that also declares what wars are "illegal" vs. "legal", well, excuse me while I have myself a good, hard laugh. That's hypocrisy at it's best.
modified on Saturday, July 26, 2008 8:55 AM
73Zeppelin wrote:
Not really - the Baathists took power in an overthrow. If you call the U.S. invasion "illegal" that that's (the overthrow) "illegal" too - even more so since the Baath party comes from Syria.
This is nonsense. International law does not say that every government must be democratically elected. Most aren't. Basically, international law keeps out of the internal affairs of countries except in extreme cases. The Baath party thing is rubbish. The Baath party government in Iraq was not installed by Syria. Guess what. There are Labor Party governments in both Britain and Australia. I guess one of those must be illegal too.
73Zeppelin wrote:
The U.N. is a farce - Russia carries out state-sponsored assassinations in foreign countries and China silences dissidents amongst their other numerous and heinous human rights abuses. If that's the constituency of the governing body that pledges observance of the charter and that also declares what wars are "illegal" vs. "legal", well, excuse me while I have myself a good, hard laugh. That's hypocrisy at it's best.
What would it take for an international body to satisfy you? Presumably, its policies would have to be determined exclusively by democratic governments, with the rest of the world going along. I guess you stay up all night each Christmas waiting for Santa Claus. Those of us who are not fantasists recognise that the best we can hope for from the UN is some set of agreed principles governed by the mutual self interest of the world's nations, democratic and dictatorial alike. The principal such interest is in avoiding wars. Thus most wars are illegal according to the UN charter. Further, a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind", to quote the words of the Declaration of Independence, means that the UN pays modest regard to issues of human rights. Don't hold your breath waiting for this regard to rapidly increase. Don't imagine that any superior alternative to the UN is going to come along any time soon. But don't doubt that a charter opposed to wars is significant as an expression of international opinion.
John Carson
-
The clowns are the ones who want us to obligate ourselves to asking someone else's permission to defend ourselves as we see fit. You know, the "citizens of the world" types.[^]
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Saturday, July 26, 2008 10:51 AM
Actually the clowns are the ones like our Commander in Chief and his buddies who sit in protected areas and say "you, go fight" while they sit on their asses. They don't lead by example. As far as your link to me as a 'citizen of the world', your obviously confused. I don't run this country. I run my house. Come in my yard and start some crap with me and you'll get a good idea of what it'll be like to go to hell. Oh, and good to see you again Stan
Don't take any wooden nickels.
-
Actually the clowns are the ones like our Commander in Chief and his buddies who sit in protected areas and say "you, go fight" while they sit on their asses. They don't lead by example. As far as your link to me as a 'citizen of the world', your obviously confused. I don't run this country. I run my house. Come in my yard and start some crap with me and you'll get a good idea of what it'll be like to go to hell. Oh, and good to see you again Stan
Don't take any wooden nickels.
Dirk Higbee wrote:
As far as your link to me as a 'citizen of the world', your obviously confused.
I believe this is a reference to Obama's speech in Germany. "Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world."
John Carson
-
Dirk Higbee wrote:
As far as your link to me as a 'citizen of the world', your obviously confused.
I believe this is a reference to Obama's speech in Germany. "Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world."
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
"Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world."
citizen n. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation. I'm sure you understand why one cannot be a citizen of the world, John, but do you think Obama does?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
What's the legal definition of "illegal war" and which legal reference source are you using?
Probably whether it is in accord with the UN Charter. See here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1[^] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm[^] http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm[^]
John Carson
1. Perle does not speak for the U.S. Government. Nor is he correct in his assesment. This shouldn't surprise anyone who knows just how inept Rumsfeld and his neocon cohorts were. 2. The United States and many other countries attacked Iraq, under the aegis of thge UN back in 90. Although a cease fire was agreed to in 91, at no time was peace declared. This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq. As the Allies attempted to enforce the terms of the agreement, Hussein began attacking the air and naval forces of the Coalition (sans France) which led to punishing attacks on his armed forces and, occasionally, civilian casualties. These conflicts lasted right up to Desert Storm. To spell it out: by the time the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it had been in a state of war with the country for 11 years. 3. Neither New Zealand nor Australia have been given the power by U.N. Charter or Congressional vote to determine when the United States stops being at war. (i.e. You can't tell us that we are at peace with North Korea, even though we are not actively engaging them at this time. Indeed, I suspect that if you check, you'll discover that Australia is also still at war with North Korea.) And your country certainly had no right to presume to claim that we had declared peace with Iraq ourselves -- or that Hussein had done so.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
1. Perle does not speak for the U.S. Government. Nor is he correct in his assesment. This shouldn't surprise anyone who knows just how inept Rumsfeld and his neocon cohorts were. 2. The United States and many other countries attacked Iraq, under the aegis of thge UN back in 90. Although a cease fire was agreed to in 91, at no time was peace declared. This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq. As the Allies attempted to enforce the terms of the agreement, Hussein began attacking the air and naval forces of the Coalition (sans France) which led to punishing attacks on his armed forces and, occasionally, civilian casualties. These conflicts lasted right up to Desert Storm. To spell it out: by the time the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it had been in a state of war with the country for 11 years. 3. Neither New Zealand nor Australia have been given the power by U.N. Charter or Congressional vote to determine when the United States stops being at war. (i.e. You can't tell us that we are at peace with North Korea, even though we are not actively engaging them at this time. Indeed, I suspect that if you check, you'll discover that Australia is also still at war with North Korea.) And your country certainly had no right to presume to claim that we had declared peace with Iraq ourselves -- or that Hussein had done so.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
2. The United States and many other countries attacked Iraq, under the aegis of thge UN back in 90. Although a cease fire was agreed to in 91, at no time was peace declared. This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq. As the Allies attempted to enforce the terms of the agreement, Hussein began attacking the air and naval forces of the Coalition (sans France) which led to punishing attacks on his armed forces and, occasionally, civilian casualties. These conflicts lasted right up to Desert Storm. To spell it out: by the time the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it had been in a state of war with the country for 11 years.
I am familiar with that argument. I merely note that it is rejected by the overwhelming majority of legal experts. Take it up with them.
John Carson
-
Actually the clowns are the ones like our Commander in Chief and his buddies who sit in protected areas and say "you, go fight" while they sit on their asses. They don't lead by example. As far as your link to me as a 'citizen of the world', your obviously confused. I don't run this country. I run my house. Come in my yard and start some crap with me and you'll get a good idea of what it'll be like to go to hell. Oh, and good to see you again Stan
Don't take any wooden nickels.
Dirk Higbee wrote:
Actually the clowns are the ones like our Commander in Chief and his buddies who sit in protected areas and say "you, go fight" while they sit on their asses. They don't lead by example.
Clearly, the concept of 'chain of command' is beyond your comprehension.
Dirk Higbee wrote:
I don't run this country.
Precisely.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
2. The United States and many other countries attacked Iraq, under the aegis of thge UN back in 90. Although a cease fire was agreed to in 91, at no time was peace declared. This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq. As the Allies attempted to enforce the terms of the agreement, Hussein began attacking the air and naval forces of the Coalition (sans France) which led to punishing attacks on his armed forces and, occasionally, civilian casualties. These conflicts lasted right up to Desert Storm. To spell it out: by the time the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it had been in a state of war with the country for 11 years.
I am familiar with that argument. I merely note that it is rejected by the overwhelming majority of legal experts. Take it up with them.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I am familiar with that argument. I merely note that it is rejected by the overwhelming majority of legal experts. Take it up with them.
John, I already dealt with this: "Neither New Zealand nor Australia have been given the power by U.N. Charter or Congressional vote to determine when the United States stops being at war. (i.e. You can't tell us that we are at peace with North Korea, even though we are not actively engaging them at this time. Indeed, I suspect that if you check, you'll discover that Australia is also still at war with North Korea.) And your country certainly had no right to presume to claim that we had declared peace with Iraq ourselves -- or that Hussein had done so." Please note the last sentence: Hussein considered himself to be at war with the U.S. and Britain. He said so. In speech after speech. Now if any of these oh so knowledgeable lawyers have an argument that trumps what I said, by all means - lets hear it. Otherwise, without referents, your claim is meaningless.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
John Carson wrote:
"Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world."
citizen n. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation. I'm sure you understand why one cannot be a citizen of the world, John, but do you think Obama does?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
understand why one cannot be a citizen of the world, but do you think Obama does?
Naaah. His IQ isn't high enough.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Actually the clowns are the ones like our Commander in Chief and his buddies who sit in protected areas and say "you, go fight" while they sit on their asses. They don't lead by example. As far as your link to me as a 'citizen of the world', your obviously confused. I don't run this country. I run my house. Come in my yard and start some crap with me and you'll get a good idea of what it'll be like to go to hell. Oh, and good to see you again Stan
Don't take any wooden nickels.
Dirk Higbee wrote:
clowns are the ones like our Commander in Chief
Let's see you do better than Bush when there's been a terror attack, and a psychotic enemy out there threatening America's well being. What is your solution to the problem? Sitting around doing little negotiations, diplomatic dialogue, or whatever you want to call it, isn't the answer with the crazies out there.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Not really - the Baathists took power in an overthrow. If you call the U.S. invasion "illegal" that that's (the overthrow) "illegal" too - even more so since the Baath party comes from Syria.
This is nonsense. International law does not say that every government must be democratically elected. Most aren't. Basically, international law keeps out of the internal affairs of countries except in extreme cases. The Baath party thing is rubbish. The Baath party government in Iraq was not installed by Syria. Guess what. There are Labor Party governments in both Britain and Australia. I guess one of those must be illegal too.
73Zeppelin wrote:
The U.N. is a farce - Russia carries out state-sponsored assassinations in foreign countries and China silences dissidents amongst their other numerous and heinous human rights abuses. If that's the constituency of the governing body that pledges observance of the charter and that also declares what wars are "illegal" vs. "legal", well, excuse me while I have myself a good, hard laugh. That's hypocrisy at it's best.
What would it take for an international body to satisfy you? Presumably, its policies would have to be determined exclusively by democratic governments, with the rest of the world going along. I guess you stay up all night each Christmas waiting for Santa Claus. Those of us who are not fantasists recognise that the best we can hope for from the UN is some set of agreed principles governed by the mutual self interest of the world's nations, democratic and dictatorial alike. The principal such interest is in avoiding wars. Thus most wars are illegal according to the UN charter. Further, a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind", to quote the words of the Declaration of Independence, means that the UN pays modest regard to issues of human rights. Don't hold your breath waiting for this regard to rapidly increase. Don't imagine that any superior alternative to the UN is going to come along any time soon. But don't doubt that a charter opposed to wars is significant as an expression of international opinion.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The Baath party thing is rubbish. The Baath party government in Iraq was not installed by Syria. Guess what. There are Labor Party governments in both Britain and Australia. I guess one of those must be illegal too.
It's not rubbish - you can read about it here[^]. I didn't say Syria had a hand in the installation of the party in Iraq, but the Iraqi Baath party originated in Syria.
John Carson wrote:
What would it take for an international body to satisfy you? Presumably, its policies would have to be determined exclusively by democratic governments, with the rest of the world going along. I guess you stay up all night each Christmas waiting for Santa Claus.
Santa Claus, no not quite. As to "what would satisfy me", how about a body that condemns the U.S. AND Russia and China and all those countries that don't abide by the U.N. charter. Selective anti-Americanism is petty and dumb and carried out by small minded people with narrow vision. If you can't see the irony in condemning the U.S. while everyone else ooohs and awwwws about the upcoming Olympics in China all the while turning a blind eye to their "illegal" invasion (and continuing oppression) of Tibet, well I can't help you much there. I'm not a "fantasist", but I certainly recognize the inherent ridiculousness of an organization lead by countries with past and continuing grievous human rights abuses. Hell, if we're going to have a U.N. comprised of a body of countries like that why not let the Nazi's have a seat? Why should any country respect the U.N. charter when member countries carry out assassinations on foreign soil and silence political opponents? At some point it has to turn from "hey, the system is broken but it moves along" to "hey, this thing is fundamentally flawed and something needs to be done". Apathy isn't a solution.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Not really - the Baathists took power in an overthrow. If you call the U.S. invasion "illegal" that that's (the overthrow) "illegal" too - even more so since the Baath party comes from Syria.
just like the cia installed the shah of iran or installed pinotchet get real the CIA has over thrown more govts than any other org since WW2 that makes the US the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
I make the effort to write in full sentences with perfect grammar for your edification. You'd think you'd return the favour and try to do the same.
-
I make the effort to write in full sentences with perfect grammar for your edification. You'd think you'd return the favour and try to do the same.
For a kid whose normal mode of communication is texting, I think he's doing much somewhat a little better than we might have expected. However, his spelling is atrocious. As is his knowledge of history and international law.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
For a kid whose normal mode of communication is texting, I think he's doing much somewhat a little better than we might have expected. However, his spelling is atrocious. As is his knowledge of history and international law.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Indeed. I mean I actually spend some time thinking about my replies. I try to avoid the ol' "the US sux0rs u n00b, now stfu" routine. It seems only fair that a reply to my reply should be well thought out with some noticeable effort put into it.
-
What's the legal definition of "illegal war" and which legal reference source are you using? Oh yeah, what's the crime?
:shrug: people have been hanged for less.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
:shrug: people have been hanged for less.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
peterchen wrote:
people have been hanged for less
And beatified for less as well. Neither seems appropriate in this case.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Politically it would be an inappropriate stunt, and I don't know if a "citizen arrest" (whatever that is) is legally appropriate. However, I'd cheer for them. If I lie - in good faith or not - and my lies lead to the death of young american boys and girls, someone will bust my ass. If I royally screw up at my job, I get fired, even if I couldn't do better. I have to deal with the consequences of my actions, even if they were well-intended. That's ok with me. She is, however, seen as "one of those that get away with it". However she leaves that government, she won't be standing in line in front of the salvation army. Even that's ok with me. I don't want to see her lynched or whatever. If she was held indeed, after a few weeks I'd chime in that the joke is stale now, and she should be let go. However, as a reminder that - no matter how high up you are - you are NOT beyond reach, that with great power comes great responsibility, it would put a grin on my face.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Politically it would be an inappropriate stunt, and I don't know if a "citizen arrest" (whatever that is) is legally appropriate. However, I'd cheer for them. If I lie - in good faith or not - and my lies lead to the death of young american boys and girls, someone will bust my ass. If I royally screw up at my job, I get fired, even if I couldn't do better. I have to deal with the consequences of my actions, even if they were well-intended. That's ok with me. She is, however, seen as "one of those that get away with it". However she leaves that government, she won't be standing in line in front of the salvation army. Even that's ok with me. I don't want to see her lynched or whatever. If she was held indeed, after a few weeks I'd chime in that the joke is stale now, and she should be let go. However, as a reminder that - no matter how high up you are - you are NOT beyond reach, that with great power comes great responsibility, it would put a grin on my face.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
Even that's ok with me. I don't want to see her lynched or whatever. If she was held indeed, after a few weeks I'd chime in that the joke is stale now, and she should be let go.
You are aware that Ms. Rice doesn't wander around overseas without bodyguards, aren't you? I wouldn't expect killabyte to understand such things, but I'm surprised to see you entertaining similar fantasies.
peterchen wrote:
However, as a reminder that - no matter how high up you are - you are NOT beyond reach, that with great power comes great responsibility, it would put a grin on my face.
I doubt that the kidnapping of the Secretary of State of the United States would put a grin on anyone's face for very long.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I make the effort to write in full sentences with perfect grammar for your edification. You'd think you'd return the favour and try to do the same.
-
John Carson wrote:
I am familiar with that argument. I merely note that it is rejected by the overwhelming majority of legal experts. Take it up with them.
John, I already dealt with this: "Neither New Zealand nor Australia have been given the power by U.N. Charter or Congressional vote to determine when the United States stops being at war. (i.e. You can't tell us that we are at peace with North Korea, even though we are not actively engaging them at this time. Indeed, I suspect that if you check, you'll discover that Australia is also still at war with North Korea.) And your country certainly had no right to presume to claim that we had declared peace with Iraq ourselves -- or that Hussein had done so." Please note the last sentence: Hussein considered himself to be at war with the U.S. and Britain. He said so. In speech after speech. Now if any of these oh so knowledgeable lawyers have an argument that trumps what I said, by all means - lets hear it. Otherwise, without referents, your claim is meaningless.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Hussein considered himself to be at war with the U.S. and Britain. He said so. In speech after speech.
I remember reading/hearing/seeing something like that for sometime. Amazing how some people tend to forget the real facts.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon