Arrest warrent reward for condy rice
-
John Carson wrote:
then the UN authorised a ceasefire
No. Actually George Herbert Walker Bush declared a cease fire. The UN ratified it.
John Carson wrote:
it never authorised the no-fly zones
That's right, the U.S. Britain and France imposed them when Hussein began murdering thousands of Shi'a and Kurds using poison gas among other means.
John Carson wrote:
The idea that the US has a unilateral authority to enforce the terms of the ceasefire agreement is not one supported by most international legal experts
If only the handful of lawyers you found - which include assistant professors from second-rate law colleges - argue against the U.S. re-engaging in Iraq, then the concept of "most international legal experts" seems to be quite elastic in Oz-speak.
John Carson wrote:
You, on the other hand, are apparently claiming special rights for the US. It doesn't have them. Legal authority in these matters rests with the UN
I am claiming that the U.S. is a sovereign nation that from 1991 until 2003, with the exception of a very brief period of time right after the U.S. declared a cease-fire, was never not engaged in armed combat with Iraq. The fact that Australian newspapers didn't cover the hostilities well between 1993 and 2003 does not mean we weren't actively shooting at each other. Hussein, during this ten year period offered a $15,000 bounty to any of his pilots who shot down an American or British combat jet. I find myself wondering if Oz would consider itself engaged in armed hostilities if Yudhoyono offered a similar bounty to Indonesian pilots in an attempt to keep Australia from stealing all of the region's oil.
John Carson wrote:
The idea that old UN resolutions can be used to overrule the intent of more recent resolutions is not supportable.
Neither is the idea that resolutions that directly link back to an earlier resolution in an attempt to enforce the earlier resolution suddenly stand on their own. I appreciate your attempt to find links that support your position and agree that there are some. However, I did not find the names themselves, their titles, or the number of them in aggregate impressive enough to let me agree with your claims that "most international legal experts" support yo
Oakman wrote:
That's right, the U.S. Britain and France imposed them when Hussein began murdering thousands of Shi'a and Kurds using poison gas among other means.
I think the no-fly zones were a good idea. I don't regard conformity to UN resolutions to be the ultimate good.
Oakman wrote:
If only the handful of lawyers you found - which include assistant professors from second-rate law colleges - argue against the U.S. re-engaging in Iraq, then the concept of "most international legal experts" seems to be quite elastic in Oz-speak.
The concept is not elastic at all. You are right that I haven't provided you with proof that most international legal experts think the invasion was illegal. Providing such proof would be quite an undertaking and my time and resources are limited. If you would like to make the relevant study, then please go ahead. The matter was extensively discussed in 2003 and my recollection is that very few independent experts supported the position of the US/UK/Australia. I stand by that.
Oakman wrote:
I am claiming that the U.S. is a sovereign nation that from 1991 until 2003, with the exception of a very brief period of time right after the U.S. declared a cease-fire, was never not engaged in armed combat with Iraq. The fact that Australian newspapers didn't cover the hostilities well between 1993 and 2003 does not mean we weren't actively shooting at each other. Hussein, during this ten year period offered a $15,000 bounty to any of his pilots who shot down an American or British combat jet. I find myself wondering if Oz would consider itself engaged in armed hostilities if Yudhoyono offered a similar bounty to Indonesian pilots in an attempt to keep Australia from stealing all of the region's oil.
I am perfectly aware that there was shooting. These matters are well covered by the Australian media. I note that all of the conflict took place over Iraqi territory. It does not constitute a legal justification for invasion.
Oakman wrote:
Neither is the idea that resolutions that directly link back to an earlier resolution in an attempt to enforce the earlier resolution suddenly stand on their own.
They don't stand on their own. They do nevertheless limit what is legal by way of enforcing those earlier resolutions.
John Carson
-
yes[^] God, guys, you are so serious. Don't you see the story potential? "I god my ass dragged to Guantanamo. For arresitng Condi. Yeah, that Condi."
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 -
You could say pretty much the same thing about George W. Bush and you.
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.
I saw some ad on Yahoo that was for one of those IQ test websites that said GW's IQ was 125. Is it really that high? Jeff
-
I saw some ad on Yahoo that was for one of those IQ test websites that said GW's IQ was 125. Is it really that high? Jeff
Not sure if it is true or not, but I once read he was not at the top of his class in college.
"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
-
I saw some ad on Yahoo that was for one of those IQ test websites that said GW's IQ was 125. Is it really that high? Jeff
I have no idea what his IQ is, but it is my understanding that the MBA degree from Harvard is one of the more challanging courses you can take anywhere and they show no preferences for family connections. I seriously doubt the guy is any kind of intellectual giant, but the fact that he passed at all shows that he is not an idiot.
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.
-
I have no idea what his IQ is, but it is my understanding that the MBA degree from Harvard is one of the more challanging courses you can take anywhere and they show no preferences for family connections. I seriously doubt the guy is any kind of intellectual giant, but the fact that he passed at all shows that he is not an idiot.
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
MBA degree from Harvard is one of the more challanging courses you can take anywhere
I agree since Harvard is a big name and it should be pretty serious program. I do have a cousin who just graduated from high school who is going Ivy League to play football and get in a business program. His school grades were plenty convincing enough. --- modified http://www.upenn.edu/[^] is it for him.
"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
-
I saw some ad on Yahoo that was for one of those IQ test websites that said GW's IQ was 125. Is it really that high? Jeff
csciwizard wrote:
Is it really that high?
Not sure, but I've seen the ad you mentioned and it is perhaps just a silly jab at Bush.
"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