Confirmed: UK sexed up WMDs

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
If it's true that your son died in Iraq, I'm sorry to hear it. However I am saddened more that you dishonor the memory of your son by failing to support the cause in which he VOLUNTEERED his service. The cause of Liberty is a noble one, one WORTH fighting for. Those who stand in the service of this cause are heroes and deserve that recognition, not the dishonor of attacking their cause and claiming it was based on lies when you have no such knowledge.

Jason

Dishonor! That takes the cake! I am in no mood to agrue with a screen name on the internet right now but will tell you this in closing and will say no more:

You have no such knowledge that this war was NOT predicated on lies. Dying for you country is noble, but just becuase you are in the army, over in some foreign country, and die does not mean that you died for Liberty as you put it.

My God are you so in love with Bush that you can not see that?

Liberty my a$$. Who have we liberated? Why did we have to "Liberate" that country? Why was it our job? Why did we have to do it WHEN we did it? Why, when the rest of the world said, Sorry USA, we are not going to back you on this, did we continue to spin away that WMDs were ready to be launched at any time against us and our interests?

Get off your high horse and quit wrapping yourself in the flag to deflect the truth. The presidents rush to jump the gun has cost me and many like me a child or a brother or a Dad or Mom. I don't know a one that I have communicated with since this occured who feels their child, dad, mom, etc died for Liberty as you put it. My child's death has made you no safer when you go to sleep at night. It may have made the mother or a father of a child in Mosul feel a little safer to know that another of the Americans were dead though. And you know what in all honesty, I could care less at this point in my life about the landscape and the political climate of Iraq. We have enough problems over here in THIS country thank you very much.

Well I'm most assuredly *not* in love with Bush, I think he's something of an imbecile, all in all, and I think that the WMD talk probably *was* just spin, though I don't think you or I have enough information to conclusively say whether Bush and company lied or just had crappy intel, or whether Saddam really *did* spirit the WMD's away before we got there. There is a LOT that can happen, and as much as we like simple answers like "He lied!" or "Saddam hid them!" or whatever, I think the TRUTH is that we just flat out DON'T know.

That said, you have to look at the long-term picture when you consider the importance of Iraq as a place for Liberty to grow in that region. The middle east has NEVER known Liberty in the way that you and I know it, they have never known religious freedom or tolerance, nor have they known the concept of Natural Rights or equality. I don't know whether the world is safer today than it was 6 months ago, but if we do this thing in Iraq properly, if we give them a foundation in the ideas that made our country great and free, those ideas will spread throughout that region. It might take 100 years, but those ideas WILL spread, and in time the people of that region will refuse to settle for brutality and persecution. It's not a simple overnight goal; it's not as simple as taking out a handful of guys and letting everything sort itself out.

There is a tendency among people to remain in familiar patterns, even if those patterns are unhealthy. It's the reason why dysfunction passes from generation to generation in families, and it's the reason why countries like China have lived in bondage and the middle east has remained in religious conflict for thousands of years. People stay in those patterns *because* they are familiar. It takes a powerful catalyzing agent to break their learned way of living and help them reorganize on a higher level. In the US we think, as RD said above, that people should just overthrow their own oppressive governments and declare their own Liberty.

Morally, that's true; they should do that. Psychologically and historically it is VERY unlikely and very difficult, just as it is difficult for a child who grows up with abusive parents to escape the trap of becoming an abuser him or herself. Most of the time they *can't* get out of it on their own, and often they don't even realize it's a problem until a therapist is able to work with them, sometimes for years, to help them see their problem --their learned pattern-- and overcome it. In the middle east you are seeing the same pattern, the same principle at work, but on the scale of many nations who have been at religious odds for thousands of years. The number of people is much greater, but the principle is the same.

I understand that you are bitter about the loss of your son. Anyone would be, and my heart does go out to you and the many other families who lost loved ones in this terrible conflict. It might not bring you comfort, but then again it might, to realize that somewhere down the road--perhaps even beyond the time of your and my death--that a huge percentage of the world will be freer, safer, and more tolerant of differences than they are today. Your son, as well as the sons and daughters of many other Americans, will have been the foundation of that understanding and tolerance. They are the therapist, they are the catalyzing agent that is beginning what must be a long process of change.

For that, I commend all those who have fought, who live and who died in this very noble cause.

Jason
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: Gaard
leeboy, my condolences. :(

Thank you very much. I think he would want me to get on with my life so... I will never bring him up here again.
I am deeply sorry you lost your son!
no one should outlive their children :(
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,859
6,394
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: Gaard
leeboy, my condolences. :(

Thank you very much. I think he would want me to get on with my life so... I will never bring him up here again.
I am deeply sorry you lost your son!
no one should outlive their children :(

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Gaard
Except that Dari isn't talking about the resolutions. He's talking about the charter itself. He's saying that if the UN passes a resolution, any UNSC member has an automatic green light to use force to enforce the resolution. So, technically, if the US hadn't wanted a war, but say France did, it would've been ok for France to wage war against Iraq...even if the rest of the UNSC memebers didn 't want it.
That's total and utter BS. If that's what Dari believes, he's completely delusional. EDIT: If that was that case (which it's clearly not), why even bother having a Security Council?

It's not BS because the UN is a members organization. If the UNSC agrees to pass an Article VII resolution, then it is up to the members to carry it out. Imagine how terrible the world would be if laws were passed and there was no one to enforce them. In the case of Iraq, Article VII resoultions authorize force. If Iraq's resolutions was passed under Article VI, neither the US or anyone else could lay a finger on Iraq without breaking international law.

The operative word being "members" (plural) -- meaning, the members of the UN Security Council must agree on the use of force for the force to be authorized. So, NO that does not mean 1 single member of the UNSC gets to enforce what they feel like enforcing and then using the cover of the UN for their actions. I call BS.


The sanctioning of force is already built into Article VII, of which the Iraqi UN resolutions fell under. It is so that force is not always necessary to authorize explicitly.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Dari

The sanctioning of force is already built into Article VII, of which the Iraqi UN resolutions fell under. It is so that force is not always necessary to authorize explicitly.


No it isn't.


You can convince me otherwise. All you have to do is show me where it says this. I know, I know...it's vague. But there must be some sentence/paragraph/phrase/whatever that leads you (your mentor) to believe that it does. To simply say "It's vague, but it's common knowledge" not only doesn't convince me, but, IMO, it also shows that you are simply taking someone elses word for it without truly understanding it yourself. How can you think that it says what you say it does without understanding why you think that way...other than "It's vague, but trust me. Politicians speak that way." Can you understand where I'm coming from Dari? What is it that makes you think the charter says what you say it does?

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari

The sanctioning of force is already built into Article VII, of which the Iraqi UN resolutions fell under. It is so that force is not always necessary to authorize explicitly.


No it isn't.


You can convince me otherwise. All you have to do is show me where it says this. I know, I know...it's vague. But there must be some sentence/paragraph/phrase/whatever that leads you (your mentor) to believe that it does. To simply say "It's vague, but it's common knowledge" not only doesn't convince me, but, IMO, it also shows that you are simply taking someone elses word for it without truly understanding it yourself. How can you think that it says what you say it does without understanding why you think that way...other than "It's vague, but trust me. Politicians speak that way." Can you understand where I'm coming from Dari? What is it that makes you think the charter says what you say it does?


I believe Fencer pointed it out to you a while ago. The key word was "may." In other words, member states may use force to carry out a directive. It's vague but it works. I'm tired of arguing with you over this. You found the charter and saw what it said. If you want to interpret it differently from what everyone else has concluded for the past 50 years, then go ahead. But remember, you are the one with the wrong conclusion, not everyone else. In fact, you're new to this topic. Before 2003, you never even knew what an Article VII resolution was. Now you're telling me what it means. Excuse me, but I think you need to do less talking and more listening. If you don't believe, you can always call the United Nations at (212) 963-2486 or head over to 1 UN Plaza.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari
The sanctioning of force is already built into Article VII, of which the Iraqi UN resolutions fell under. It is so that force is not always necessary to authorize explicitly.
No it isn't.


You can convince me otherwise. All you have to do is show me where it says this. I know, I know...it's vague. But there must be some sentence/paragraph/phrase/whatever that leads you (your mentor) to believe that it does. To simply say "It's vague, but it's common knowledge" not only doesn't convince me, but, IMO, it also shows that you are simply taking someone elses word for it without truly understanding it yourself. How can you think that it says what you say it does without understanding why you think that way...other than "It's vague, but trust me. Politicians speak that way." Can you understand where I'm coming from Dari? What is it that makes you think the charter says what you say it does?
I believe Fencer pointed it out to you a while ago. The key word was "may." In other words, member states may use force to carry out a directive. It's vague but it works. I'm tired of arguing with you over this. You found the charter and saw what it said. If you want to interpret it differently from what everyone else has concluded for the past 50 years, then go ahead. But remember, you are the one with the wrong conclusion, not everyone else. In fact, you're new to this topic. Before 2003, you never even knew what an Article VII resolution was. Now you're telling me what it means. Excuse me, but I think you need to do less talking and more listening. If you don't believe, you can always call the United Nations at (212) 963-2486 or head over to 1 UN Plaza.
Yep Gaard, you're all alone. It's just you, most of the world, and the U.N. itself on your side. But you've got Dari against you, so you best surrender quietly.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari
The sanctioning of force is already built into Article VII, of which the Iraqi UN resolutions fell under. It is so that force is not always necessary to authorize explicitly.
No it isn't.


You can convince me otherwise. All you have to do is show me where it says this. I know, I know...it's vague. But there must be some sentence/paragraph/phrase/whatever that leads you (your mentor) to believe that it does. To simply say "It's vague, but it's common knowledge" not only doesn't convince me, but, IMO, it also shows that you are simply taking someone elses word for it without truly understanding it yourself. How can you think that it says what you say it does without understanding why you think that way...other than "It's vague, but trust me. Politicians speak that way." Can you understand where I'm coming from Dari? What is it that makes you think the charter says what you say it does?
I believe Fencer pointed it out to you a while ago. The key word was "may." In other words, member states may use force to carry out a directive. It's vague but it works. I'm tired of arguing with you over this. You found the charter and saw what it said. If you want to interpret it differently from what everyone else has concluded for the past 50 years, then go ahead. But remember, you are the one with the wrong conclusion, not everyone else. In fact, you're new to this topic. Before 2003, you never even knew what an Article VII resolution was. Now you're telling me what it means. Excuse me, but I think you need to do less talking and more listening. If you don't believe, you can always call the United Nations at (212) 963-2486 or head over to 1 UN Plaza.
Yep Gaard, you're all alone. It's just you, most of the world, and the U.N. itself on your side. But you've got Dari against you, so you best surrender quietly.


In case you've missed the entire conversation, were discussing the finer (minute) points and details of international law, not what the masses think.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari

The sanctioning of force is already built into Article VII, of which the Iraqi UN resolutions fell under. It is so that force is not always necessary to authorize explicitly.


No it isn't.


You can convince me otherwise. All you have to do is show me where it says this. I know, I know...it's vague. But there must be some sentence/paragraph/phrase/whatever that leads you (your mentor) to believe that it does. To simply say "It's vague, but it's common knowledge" not only doesn't convince me, but, IMO, it also shows that you are simply taking someone elses word for it without truly understanding it yourself. How can you think that it says what you say it does without understanding why you think that way...other than "It's vague, but trust me. Politicians speak that way." Can you understand where I'm coming from Dari? What is it that makes you think the charter says what you say it does?


I believe Fencer pointed it out to you a while ago. The key word was "may." In other words, member states may use force to carry out a directive. It's vague but it works. I'm tired of arguing with you over this. You found the charter and saw what it said. If you want to interpret it differently from what everyone else has concluded for the past 50 years, then go ahead. But remember, you are the one with the wrong conclusion, not everyone else. In fact, you're new to this topic. Before 2003, you never even knew what an Article VII resolution was. Now you're telling me what it means. Excuse me, but I think you need to do less talking and more listening. If you don't believe, you can always call the United Nations at (212) 963-2486 or head over to 1 UN Plaza.

The passage fencer quoted states that "...the SC may...", not "....SC members may...". No, it doesn't work. And if I'm not mistaken, this isn't 'Article Vii', it's Capter VII of the UN Chater, please don't give me any of your condescending attitude. And I'm not telling you what it means...I'm questioning your interpretation. You keep saying it's common knowledge, that everybody agrees with you...so tell me, why haven't ANY members backed you up on this? Are there no members here who are as educated/knowledgable as you?

If you believe what you believe based on the passage that Fencer quoted, you really need yo reevaluate your thinking on the subject. I suggest you have a long talk with your mentor about this. Surely, he can't be correct 100% of the time. Surely, you can't be either. Don't you think this might be one of the few times you aren't?

I'll go back and find the passage that Fencer quoted, you know, the same one that you are basing your belief on. OK?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari

The sanctioning of force is already built into Article VII, of which the Iraqi UN resolutions fell under. It is so that force is not always necessary to authorize explicitly.


No it isn't.


You can convince me otherwise. All you have to do is show me where it says this. I know, I know...it's vague. But there must be some sentence/paragraph/phrase/whatever that leads you (your mentor) to believe that it does. To simply say "It's vague, but it's common knowledge" not only doesn't convince me, but, IMO, it also shows that you are simply taking someone elses word for it without truly understanding it yourself. How can you think that it says what you say it does without understanding why you think that way...other than "It's vague, but trust me. Politicians speak that way." Can you understand where I'm coming from Dari? What is it that makes you think the charter says what you say it does?


I believe Fencer pointed it out to you a while ago. The key word was "may." In other words, member states may use force to carry out a directive. It's vague but it works. I'm tired of arguing with you over this. You found the charter and saw what it said. If you want to interpret it differently from what everyone else has concluded for the past 50 years, then go ahead. But remember, you are the one with the wrong conclusion, not everyone else. In fact, you're new to this topic. Before 2003, you never even knew what an Article VII resolution was. Now you're telling me what it means. Excuse me, but I think you need to do less talking and more listening. If you don't believe, you can always call the United Nations at (212) 963-2486 or head over to 1 UN Plaza.

The passage fencer quoted states that "...the SC may...", not "....SC members may...". No, it doesn't work. And if I'm not mistaken, this isn't 'Article Vii', it's Capter VII of the UN Chater, please don't give me any of your condescending attitude. And I'm not telling you what it means...I'm questioning your interpretation. You keep saying it's common knowledge, that everybody agrees with you...so tell me, why haven't ANY members backed you up on this? Are there no members here who are as educated/knowledgable as you?

If you believe what you believe based on the passage that Fencer quoted, you really need yo reevaluate your thinking on the subject. I suggest you have a long talk with your mentor about this. Surely, he can't be correct 100% of the time. Surely, you can't be either. Don't you think this might be one of the few times you aren't?

I'll go back and find the passage that Fencer quoted, you know, the same one that you are basing your belief on. OK?


You're the parasite that keeps this "mentor" thing alive. Drop it.

as for your point, you're right to a point. If you read "...the SC may...", which is Article (Chapter, same thing) VII, you have to refer back to the resolution itself. Now, when you look at Resolution 1441, which the Security Council passed unanimously (sic?), you will see that it orders Iraq to follow the directive "or there will be serious consequences."

I believe that I told you in that same thread that both Article VII and the resolution that fell under it must complement each other. In this case, they do. Article VII states that the SC "may" authorize force and Resolution 1441 says that there "may/will be serious consequences should Iraq not obey the directive.

There you have it, a 1-2 punch.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
dari
"serious consiquences" is not UN war speech, that is "any means nessecary"
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
dari,
"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; "

When the UN authorizes the use of force they use "any means nessecary", they have never used "serious consiquences"
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari

The sanctioning of force is already built into Article VII, of which the Iraqi UN resolutions fell under. It is so that force is not always necessary to authorize explicitly.


No it isn't.


You can convince me otherwise. All you have to do is show me where it says this. I know, I know...it's vague. But there must be some sentence/paragraph/phrase/whatever that leads you (your mentor) to believe that it does. To simply say "It's vague, but it's common knowledge" not only doesn't convince me, but, IMO, it also shows that you are simply taking someone elses word for it without truly understanding it yourself. How can you think that it says what you say it does without understanding why you think that way...other than "It's vague, but trust me. Politicians speak that way." Can you understand where I'm coming from Dari? What is it that makes you think the charter says what you say it does?


I believe Fencer pointed it out to you a while ago. The key word was "may." In other words, member states may use force to carry out a directive. It's vague but it works. I'm tired of arguing with you over this. You found the charter and saw what it said. If you want to interpret it differently from what everyone else has concluded for the past 50 years, then go ahead. But remember, you are the one with the wrong conclusion, not everyone else. In fact, you're new to this topic. Before 2003, you never even knew what an Article VII resolution was. Now you're telling me what it means. Excuse me, but I think you need to do less talking and more listening. If you don't believe, you can always call the United Nations at (212) 963-2486 or head over to 1 UN Plaza.

The passage fencer quoted states that "...the SC may...", not "....SC members may...". No, it doesn't work. And if I'm not mistaken, this isn't 'Article Vii', it's Capter VII of the UN Chater, please don't give me any of your condescending attitude. And I'm not telling you what it means...I'm questioning your interpretation. You keep saying it's common knowledge, that everybody agrees with you...so tell me, why haven't ANY members backed you up on this? Are there no members here who are as educated/knowledgable as you?

If you believe what you believe based on the passage that Fencer quoted, you really need yo reevaluate your thinking on the subject. I suggest you have a long talk with your mentor about this. Surely, he can't be correct 100% of the time. Surely, you can't be either. Don't you think this might be one of the few times you aren't?

I'll go back and find the passage that Fencer quoted, you know, the same one that you are basing your belief on. OK?


You're the parasite that keeps this "mentor" thing alive. Drop it.

as for your point, you're right to a point. If you read "...the SC may...", which is Article (Chapter, same thing) VII, you have to refer back to the resolution itself. Now, when you look at Resolution 1441, which the Security Council passed unanimously (sic?), you will see that it orders Iraq to follow the directive "or there will be serious consequences."

I believe that I told you in that same thread that both Article VII and the resolution that fell under it must complement each other. In this case, they do. Article VII states that the SC "may" authorize force and Resolution 1441 says that there "may/will be serious consequences should Iraq not obey the directive.

There you have it, a 1-2 punch.



Who cares what the resolution says? Please see your reference to a hypothetical resolution calling for the Chinese to chew bubblegum in the linked thread. Surely, after all this time, you're not changing your story? You have never mentioned Article(Chapter, not the same thing)VII and resolution complimenting each other. Now you're bringing up what the resolution says? What a crock!

Here's the passage that Fencer quoted (and you are basing your belief on)...

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


It comes from this thread

Nowhere do you mention any 'complimenting'. Please read your bubblegum post.

Here's the whole UN Charter

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Here's the bubblegum post...in case you didn't see it...

<<it doesn't matter what the resolution says, as long as it falls under article VII, then it's sanctioned by force. If the US made an article VII resolution calling for all chinese to chew bubblegum on the 25th of december and it passed, the SC would have the right to use force to make the chinese abide by that order.>>


Comments?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Dari is ignoring some of the "finer" points of International law:

1.) The U.S. and Britain were pushing for a stronger resolution to be built on top of UNR 1441 - one that specifically authorized force against Iraq for material breach. THEY NEVER GOT IT. Why would the US/UK push for such a resolution if they felt they did not need it?

2.) UNR 1441 did NOT authorize the use of force. Kofi Annan stood up and said as much before the war began. It did not authorise member states to use all necessary means to enforce it - the key phrase in Security Council resolution 678 that gave authority for the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991. The use of force against Iraq would have to come in the form of a Security Council decision made by ALL UNSC members, not simply one.

3.) NO UN Resolution authorizes the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Even if you could weasle out of previous resolutions the basis for using force against Iraq, to what degree is the force authorized? Does it include removing the Iraqi leader? Does it include installing a new government?
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
One has to wonder at the intellectual and moral depravity of people who would sit around and try to come up with legal reasons why a man whose regime murdered MILLIONS of his country's people should not have been removed from power by a nation whose government was *founded* upon the idea that all men are created equal and that they have certain unalienable rights.

Presumably you think that means that Americans have certain unalienable rights and f8ck the rest of the world, right?


Jason
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
DragonMasterAlex,
I ask you again, laws or morals, which has a higher standing?
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
DragonMasterAlex,
I ask you again, laws or morals, which has a higher standing?

Oh, sorry, I meant to answer that and forgot ;)

Anyway, your question is loaded, but let me be clear: The rule of law should always be obeyed, but challenged heartily within the system if it is unjust. Laws ought to be written on the basis of a rational morality based on the Laws of Nature.

The trouble with your question in the context of this argument is that the laws --International as well as US based--are not clear enough to allow any consistent agreement as to the "legality" of the war in Iraq. It's a complex issue to be sorted out by people who are well educated in these matters, and it does little good for all of us to sit here and argue about it (though it is kind of entertaining ;) .

I do not know all of the laws and regulations that pertain to the situation, as I doubt you or anyone else here does, but from the *little* bit that I've read, I would venture to guess that it's perfectly legal.

From a moral standpoint, it is TOTALLY moral, and in fact I would argue that the U.N. is an IMMORAL organization for it's willingness to recognize dictators and murderers as the legitimate heads of Sovereign Nations. I think it's abundantly clear that the U.N. doesn't give a *damn* about "human rights" as I understand the concept, and that their inaction for over a DECADE of Saddam's defiance of resolution after resolution renders them little more than a limp wrist waggling a stern finger that we all know by this point holds no conviction whatsoever.

Jason
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
One has to wonder at the intellectual and moral depravity of people who would sit around and try to come up with legal reasons why a man whose regime murdered MILLIONS of his country's people should not have been removed from power by a nation whose government was *founded* upon the idea that all men are created equal and that they have certain unalienable rights.

Presumably you think that means that Americans have certain unalienable rights and f8ck the rest of the world, right?


Jason

We're a nation of laws, Jason. Or did you conveniently forget that? Why don't you call me some names too while you're at it -- that should help your argument.
rolleye.gif
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Czar
DragonMasterAlex,
I ask you again, laws or morals, which has a higher standing?

Oh, sorry, I meant to answer that and forgot ;)

Anyway, your question is loaded, but let me be clear: The rule of law should always be obeyed, but challenged heartily within the system if it is unjust. Laws ought to be written on the basis of a rational morality based on the Laws of Nature.

The trouble with your question in the context of this argument is that the laws --International as well as US based--are not clear enough to allow any consistent agreement as to the "legality" of the war in Iraq. It's a complex issue to be sorted out by people who are well educated in these matters, and it does little good for all of us to sit here and argue about it (though it is kind of entertaining ;) .

I do not know all of the laws and regulations that pertain to the situation, as I doubt you or anyone else here does, but from the *little* bit that I've read, I would venture to guess that it's perfectly legal.

From a moral standpoint, it is TOTALLY moral, and in fact I would argue that the U.N. is an IMMORAL organization for it's willingness to recognize dictators and murderers as the legitimate heads of Sovereign Nations. I think it's abundantly clear that the U.N. doesn't give a *damn* about "human rights" as I understand the concept, and that their inaction for over a DECADE of Saddam's defiance of resolution after resolution renders them little more than a limp wrist waggling a stern finger that we all know by this point holds no conviction whatsoever.

Jason


So, let me see if I got this. You readily admit not to know if this war was legal or not...so we can safely assume that it wouldn't come as too much of a surprise if it were, at some point, deemed illegal. Now, if it were illegal, yet still moral (in your eyes), where would your opinion fall?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Dari
I believe Fencer pointed it out to you a while ago. The key word was "may." In other words, member states may use force to carry out a directive. It's vague but it works. I'm tired of arguing with you over this. You found the charter and saw what it said. If you want to interpret it differently from what everyone else has concluded for the past 50 years, then go ahead. But remember, you are the one with the wrong conclusion, not everyone else. In fact, you're new to this topic. Before 2003, you never even knew what an Article VII resolution was. Now you're telling me what it means. Excuse me, but I think you need to do less talking and more listening. If you don't believe, you can always call the United Nations at (212) 963-2486 or head over to 1 UN Plaza.
Yep Gaard, you're all alone. It's just you, most of the world, and the U.N. itself on your side. But you've got Dari against you, so you best surrender quietly.
In case you've missed the entire conversation, were discussing the finer (minute) points and details of international law, not what the masses think.
I'll accept that for "most of the world". That does NOT explain why the U.N. itself, e.g., Annan , disagrees with your interpretation. While I'm sure you're quite knowledgable on the subjects of U.N. charters and international law, I am inclined to believe that many within the U.N. are even more knowledgable.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Dari
I believe Fencer pointed it out to you a while ago. The key word was "may." In other words, member states may use force to carry out a directive. It's vague but it works. I'm tired of arguing with you over this. You found the charter and saw what it said. If you want to interpret it differently from what everyone else has concluded for the past 50 years, then go ahead. But remember, you are the one with the wrong conclusion, not everyone else. In fact, you're new to this topic. Before 2003, you never even knew what an Article VII resolution was. Now you're telling me what it means. Excuse me, but I think you need to do less talking and more listening. If you don't believe, you can always call the United Nations at (212) 963-2486 or head over to 1 UN Plaza.
Yep Gaard, you're all alone. It's just you, most of the world, and the U.N. itself on your side. But you've got Dari against you, so you best surrender quietly.
In case you've missed the entire conversation, were discussing the finer (minute) points and details of international law, not what the masses think.
I'll accept that for "most of the world". That does NOT explain why the U.N. itself, e.g., Annan , disagrees with your interpretation. While I'm sure you're quite knowledgable on the subjects of U.N. charters and international law, I am inclined to believe that many within the U.N. are even more knowledgable.


Kofi Annan is a politician, not a lawyer.