by DomusAlbion » Mon 06 Jun 2005, 14:56:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daculling', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('erl', 'T')hat's right, the moon.
We planted a U.S. flag on it.
Several times, even.
That makes it ours.
Doesn't it?
That's right, and it drives the tides. So, any energy derived from tidal forces belongs to us!
Now you're thinking creatively. Let's charge the world a tide tax.
Pay up or we'll park the moon permanently over your territory in geosynchronous orbit.
"Modern Agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food."
-- Albert Bartlett
"It will be a dark time. But for those who survive, I suspect it will be rather exciting."
-- James Lovelock
by Liamj » Thu 09 Jun 2005, 04:06:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('novaz04', 'A')nd no France didn't pull the plug on the EU, they opposed an EU constitution.
Its so sad how the American people of this forum have such a nasty streak. If you can "crush the EU", then good for you. If you did go to war with EU, I think you'll find you would be breaking international law, like you've done before.
It won't be breaking international law if EU attacked US first!
All US need to do is identify a terrorist suicider in afghanistan or iraq who is EU citizen and find/fabricate evidence that he met with EU officials sometime in his life and viola! EU conspiracy to sabotage US military personnels. A direct attack of US that allows US to respond in full force. If this scenario is carried out, US is in full compliance with international law.
World Trade Center bombings was a direct attack on US, so US responded by attacking Afghanistan. The justification for this is in full compliance with international law.
If you have the time, you should read the legal argument the US put forth.
No thanks, can only take so much nonsense in one day - name 1 Afghan on the 911 planes.
I understand King George also had the law on his side in US war of independence, what does it prove? That those with the guns make the laws. See how far you've advanced
Now, if every country the US has attacked or invaded in last 4 decades (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Lebanon, Haiti, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan...
http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm ) used the same 'logic' as drives the Bush junta and its sheeple, we could get a REAL war going (not these pissant ones where oh-so-brave US airmen carpet-bomb ANOTHER mob of third world civilians into insurgency).
by Liamj » Thu 09 Jun 2005, 19:41:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '.').. And it wasn't until 20th century did they get special group rights. That throws out many of the possible violations. Remember Imperialism and Colonialism did not violate International Law back then.
All of the countries i listed have been attacked or invaded in LAST 40 YEARS, as explicitly stated on the link i provided. But don't worry, its a common sheeple fiddle to say "oh weren't things awful back then" (some other time) as a diversion from the god awful shit going on today. Your deprogramming can only proceed at its own pace.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')International Law is weak, but without it, the world will be worse.
Do you have any evidence to support that?
by nth » Thu 09 Jun 2005, 21:51:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '.').. And it wasn't until 20th century did they get special group rights. That throws out many of the possible violations. Remember Imperialism and Colonialism did not violate International Law back then.
All of the countries i listed have been attacked or invaded in LAST 40 YEARS, as explicitly stated on the link i provided. But don't worry, its a common sheeple fiddle to say "oh weren't things awful back then" (some other time) as a diversion from the god awful shit going on today. Your deprogramming can only proceed at its own pace.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')International Law is weak, but without it, the world will be worse.
Do you have any evidence to support that?
Not this again. Please read what I wrote. I was talking about your link. Your link goes way back! Do you read what I wrote? You always do this to me. You suck!
I stated that even today US is an Imperial country. Just look at its territories whois citizens are US citizens, but don't get same rights as US citizens who live in the US 50 states. I call them second class citizens.
By the way, this is all within International Law because International law is based on state to state relations.
As for your listing of those conflicts, most of those are justify because one of the parties called in US help.
I don't think you understand International Law.
I am trying to tell people that International Law doesn't protect people from invading armies. As far as states, they protect them as long as the state doesn't violate certain laws and norms and also are open to resolving issues as explicitly stated in International Law.
International Law has explicitly stated steps one country has to take before it is allow to engage into war. US is a law abiding country. It has lawyers working to make sure US is in compliance. US wants to do something- they have lawyers figure out how they can justify it. This does not mean it is right, but it does mean they are within legal bounds.
Okay let's go over the conflicts you listed:
Vietnam: The internationally recognize state of South Vietnam explicitly requested help for US to send in troops.
Cambodia: International Law allows troops to cross borders when the state harbors aggressive forces and in act of attacking your forces.
Laos: Same reason as Cambodia.
El Salvador: US aid to state. US didn't invade.
Panama: This is difficult to explain. The last military movement was to apprehend Noriega and that one was justify by Treaty allowing US soldiers to be stationed in Panama to protect the Canal. Now, here is where it gets complicated. One justification goes that conflict ensued prior to the invasion and this was just an extension of that. A second justification goes that Noriega declared war and attack US personnel.
Nicaragua: US invaded this country? Which history book did you get that? US aided rebels were justified under the pretense of El Salvadore being attacked by Nicaragua supported paramilitary forces, but this has nothing to do with International Law as US aid was not a direct intervention type speaking in strict legal terms.
Grenada: Marxists siezed the country illegally and US restore order. It is allowed in International Law.
Lebanon: The official recognize government was the Christian based who called in help. Civil War in this country if anything- Syria could have been faulted, but if it wasn't for Syria the poor Shiites will be ruined and under Israel occupation is my guess.
Haiti: The one during Bush was to restore the Presidency, so recognize state called in US.
Libya: US didn't invade. Military action was justified for the same reasons as Sudan and Afghanistan.
Somalia was UN based when Bush send troops.
Also, for you to ponder about... International Law allows spies and such.
As I said, you can criticize International Law, but I failed to see why people give International Law such importance when trying to prevent US or other developed nations fight against developing nations. The rules are developed by nations like US- why would they not design it to their benefits?
by Liamj » Fri 10 Jun 2005, 02:15:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '.').. And it wasn't until 20th century did they get special group rights. That throws out many of the possible violations. Remember Imperialism and Colonialism did not violate International Law back then.
All of the countries i listed have been attacked or invaded in LAST 40 YEARS, as explicitly stated on the link i provided. But don't worry, its a common sheeple fiddle to say "oh weren't things awful back then" (some other time) as a diversion from the god awful shit going on today. Your deprogramming can only proceed at its own pace.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')International Law is weak, but without it, the world will be worse.
Do you have any evidence to support that?
Not this again. Please read what I wrote. I was talking about your link. Your link goes way back! Do you read what I wrote? You always do this to me. You suck!
by nth » Fri 10 Jun 2005, 13:34:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', '
')hey, at least i'm consistent.
yeah, you are.
not easy to do, i agree.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')We could argue for decades on that one. You are obviously counting parties/leaders installed by coups/votefixing/armtwisting assisted by US/UK/France etc.
Actually, I am not saying US did right. I am saying they have a legal basis for their actions. It doesn't make it right. Following International Law is easy to do. You brought up Stalin. Stalin violated International laws, but he didn't violate International Law when he created Poland.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')uh! You should be able to get a grant for that (its so obvious).
Then, why are you arguing that US violated International law?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es, and Kafka wrote an excellent book (The Trial) on the meaninglessness of law in an age of mendacity and deceit. Some say Dostoyevsky did it better, whatever, point is law is pristine princess when it suits the powerful and a trivial obstacle when it doesn't.
