Confirmed: UK sexed up WMDs

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari
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.

Annan has no legal counsel? The U.N. has no lawyers? You are a lawyer? I'm afraid I'm missing your logic.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Gaard,

I would still be in support of the war. The Liberation of an oppressed people from a genocidal tyrant is *always* worth doing, and in the long run, if we play our cards right, Iraq could become a nation that is free and productive and creative and a close ally, much like Japan has in the aftermath of WWII. It's not an entirely perfect analogy, but it's close enough for the purpose of the moral comparison.

Oh, and DealMonkey, yes, we're a nation of laws, and according to the law of the land, the PRESIDENT alone decides what other nations will be recognized by the US government as sovereign. The UN's opinion is still beneath the Constitution, and if wisdom prevails it *always* will remain so.

Jason

 

[Gaard]

Ok Jason. I was just wondering because you stated that law should always be obeyed. Perhaps an "unless you disagree with the law" should be tacked on to your statement.


BTW - if your name is Jason, what does DragonMasterAlex stand for?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

LOL. Well in the case of disagreement with the law, I think the best thing to do is to follow it and fight to overturn it if it is within your means. I guess it depends on the laws, though. I mean, you probably saw how it was, until recently, illegal to have anal sex in texas. I dunno how you'd go about going to the court and saying "I want this law overturned because I want to bone my wife in the sphincter!" though I imagine there is an option. As to the war's legality/illegality, I'm perfectly willing to say "I dunno," I'm not a legal expert, but from the *moral* viewpoint I think it was the right thing to do.

The DMA thing is kinda funny; it was the name of a character from a game called Lunar Waaaaaaaay back in 1993, and when I started using the 'net in around 94, I used that pretty much exclusively. For a long time I think I was the only one out there using it, but now there are zillions. This is the only place I still use it, and that's just because my heatware is all under the name. For the most part I just go by JasonGW now. Seems simpler

Anyway, have a good night

Jason

 

[Gaard]

Yeah, those damn Texans. Good 'ol boys through and through.

 

[Gaard]

I see Dari has chosen to discontinue our little conversation.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gaard
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?

Where am I wrong in that statement? Like you said, the Security Council has the right to sanction force. Well, if you read the last sentence, you will see that I say that the Security Council "would have the right to use force to make the Chinese abide by that order." Notice that I didn't say "members," but the SC itself. How do I contradict myself, Gaard? Did you even read what I wrote or do you just want to argue some more?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard
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?

Where am I wrong in that statement? Like you said, the Security Council has the right to sanction force. Well, if you read the last sentence, you will see that I say that the Security Council "would have the right to use force to make the Chinese abide by that order." Notice that I didn't say "members," but the SC itself. How do I contradict myself, Gaard? Did you even read what I wrote or do you just want to argue some more?

First of all, I fail to see how your bubblegum resolution 'compliments' what the charter says. Perhaps you could explain that to me.

Second of all, see where you say "the SC would have the right..."? Now compare that with your theory that the SC members (and not the SC) are automatically given the authorization to use force by the charter. See any difference?