• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Iraq war legal advice published

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Czar
yes yes.. might makes right, that your new motto?
Click to expand...
Might want to bust out those reading glasses again, pops. Or simply learn how to read. My comment simply states that the victor declares what is legally right (sane) and only those insane triumph. Of course, this goes back to the whole legal != right thing which you didn't seem to grasp the first time around, so I'm not surprised.
 
Originally posted by: Czar
hehe true true, just diplomacy tends to not get people killed along with doing more of a build up instead of build down in terms of economic and cultural development

I just wish we could move more of our agression towards either sports or, in some way politics.
Click to expand...
Clinton agreed with you. Maybe he didn't send troops to die, but people did most certainly die as a result of his policies, even if only after the fact.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Czar
in modern society right and wrong right now is defined by laws, thats what the laws are here for

over time change of right and wrong in terms of how society views them makes the laws change
Click to expand...
Right and wrong are completely independent of laws. Laws merely represent the human perception of what is right and wrong at a given instance in time. Many things that are wrong are currently legal.
Click to expand...


What? Republicans would call what you just wrote moral relativism! 😉
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Czar
hehe true true, just diplomacy tends to not get people killed along with doing more of a build up instead of build down in terms of economic and cultural development

I just wish we could move more of our agression towards either sports or, in some way politics.
Click to expand...
Clinton agreed with you. Maybe he didn't send troops to die, but people did most certainly die as a result of his policies, even if only after the fact.
Click to expand...
that is sadly inevitable because not everyone agrees with the use of diplomacy

about your other reply, then you are in the real world, stating how things are, but thats easy to come to an agreement about that. Over the course of history the victors have always written how events passed, nothing will ever change about that.

But today I'm in the line of ideals, how things can be better.
 
Originally posted by: Czar
that is sadly inevitable because not everyone agrees with the use of diplomacy

about your other reply, then you are in the real world, stating how things are, but thats easy to come to an agreement about that. Over the course of history the victors have always written how events passed, nothing will ever change about that.

But today I'm in the line of ideals, how things can be better.
Click to expand...
This was exactly my point. Things as they are: to the victor go the spoils and the ability to declare legally what is right and wrong. Things as they should be: right and wrong are immutable and laws reflect this.
 
The Republican Party is fond of telling everyone that no one is above the law...as they hold themselves above the law.

 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Czar
that is sadly inevitable because not everyone agrees with the use of diplomacy

about your other reply, then you are in the real world, stating how things are, but thats easy to come to an agreement about that. Over the course of history the victors have always written how events passed, nothing will ever change about that.

But today I'm in the line of ideals, how things can be better.
Click to expand...
This was exactly my point. Things as they are: to the victor go the spoils and the ability to declare legally what is right and wrong. Things as they should be: right and wrong are immutable and laws reflect this.
Click to expand...

so how are your ideals?
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Czar
that is sadly inevitable because not everyone agrees with the use of diplomacy

about your other reply, then you are in the real world, stating how things are, but thats easy to come to an agreement about that. Over the course of history the victors have always written how events passed, nothing will ever change about that.

But today I'm in the line of ideals, how things can be better.
Click to expand...
This was exactly my point. Things as they are: to the victor go the spoils and the ability to declare legally what is right and wrong. Things as they should be: right and wrong are immutable and laws reflect this.
Click to expand...


Laws are just behavioral agreements that a large number of people agree with, and are willing to support with various levels of power.

Laws are only valid if the people standing behind the law are willing to exhert more power than those violating the law. If the people violating the law are more powerful, or are willing to exhert more power, than the law is irrelevant and void. Which is exactly the current case of international law.

-Max
 
Originally posted by: BBond
The "Law of the Jungle" is your notion of ideals, CW?
Click to expand...
You could at least pretend like you read anything I've written here, like this post maybe:
Things as they are: to the victor go the spoils and the ability to declare legally what is right and wrong. Things as they should be: right and wrong are immutable and laws reflect this.
 
Originally posted by: Doboji
War laws are invalid. When truly at war, the objective is to destroy the enemy. The victor is legal, the loser is illegal. Thats the way it works. Both sides in every conflict since Cain and Able commit "illegal" acts. In a war if you don't like what your opponent is doing, then you must kill him to make him stop. If you are a spectator to the war, you must commit acts of war in order to change the behavior of a combatant.

Or you can do what the International community tends to do most of the time. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH STOP IT.... YOU BAD BAD PEOPLE. Which accomplishes next to nothing, other than becoming a mouth piece for one side or the other.

-Max
Click to expand...


There will be no victor in the war on terror.
 
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: Doboji
War laws are invalid. When truly at war, the objective is to destroy the enemy. The victor is legal, the loser is illegal. Thats the way it works. Both sides in every conflict since Cain and Able commit "illegal" acts. In a war if you don't like what your opponent is doing, then you must kill him to make him stop. If you are a spectator to the war, you must commit acts of war in order to change the behavior of a combatant.

Or you can do what the International community tends to do most of the time. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH STOP IT.... YOU BAD BAD PEOPLE. Which accomplishes next to nothing, other than becoming a mouth piece for one side or the other.

-Max
Click to expand...


There will be no victor in the war on terror.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the Israelis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top