Are you for or against intervening in Syria?

[VictorCharlie]

A rogue nation is a nation that ignores the will of the international community and continues to do something the international community considers illegal. Like invading Iraq for instance.

So when a nation does what it thinks is in its best interest regardless of a international popularity contest its "rogue". Got it. Rogue nation is a dumb term. Iran, NK, Israel, Syria, China, US, UK and Russia aren't "rogue". They (or I should say their leaders) do what they think is in their best interests. Iran/NK think they should have nuclear capabilities, frankly I don't care nor do I blame them. Israel is surrounded by nations that would and have previously attacked them so I don't blame them for ensuring their own continued existance. China/US/Russia are all world powers that whether correctly or not believe they need to have hegemony over their proxies in order to prosper. There is nothing rogue about doing what we all do as humans every day and that is look out for #1.

[VictorCharlie]

I got a chuckle out of this.

[Gandalf]

A rogue nation is a nation that ignores the will of the international community and continues to do something the international community considers illegal. Like invading Iraq for instance.

So when a nation does what it thinks is in its best interest regardless of a international popularity contest its "rogue". Got it. Rogue nation is a dumb term. Iran, NK, Israel, Syria, China, US, UK and Russia aren't "rogue". They (or I should say their leaders) do what they think is in their best interests. Iran/NK think they should have nuclear capabilities, frankly I don't care nor do I blame them. Israel is surrounded by nations that would and have previously attacked them so I don't blame them for ensuring their own continued existance. China/US/Russia are all world powers that whether correctly or not believe they need to have hegemony over their proxies in order to prosper. There is nothing rogue about doing what we all do as humans every day and that is look out for #1.

America is rogue because of its foreign policy shockers largely executed in the past 50 years. You could argue that America is acting in its own interests and of course any nation would argue that. However, going off to Vietnam for instance and slaughtering 2 million people based upon lies is clearly leaning towards not only rogue, but plain demented. You see it in dozens of countries right across the globe be it invasion, leader assassination, arming of terrorists etc etc. America being a rogue state is putting it nicely, it is far worse than a rogue state I am sure in the eyes of the vast bulk of the world that has suffered at its hands.

Does Denmark behave like America? Does Switzerland? Does Canada? America is completely out of synch with relatively normal nations. Also you seem to understand the term rogue due to the types of nations you listed. Countries like Syria and Iran are nothing compared to the genocide nations like North Korea, America or those who still think concentration camps and apartheid are fashionable. There are plenty of rogue nations, but the leader is obviously America. I would imagine the numbers of people killed either directly or indirectly by America is greater than all those other countries you suggested combined. It is numerically even worse when you factor in how the place was created too. North Korea kills millions domestically, but the US did the same in its early years and then it went on to carry out the murder spree internationally. North Korea is relatively benign except for the occasional missile launch. Now the same could not in a million years be suggested of America.

America being angry with Syria or Iran is an absurdity considering everything that it is. It chooses to be rogue, it could always choose to be a normal nation, but instead it chooses exceptionalism, which is another word to describe an out of control psychopath.

[VictorCharlie]

America is rogue because of its foreign policy shockers largely executed in the past 50 years. You could argue that America is acting in its own interests and of course any nation would argue that. However, going off to Vietnam for instance and slaughtering 2 million people based upon lies is clearly leaning towards not only rogue, but plain demented. You see it in dozens of countries right across the globe be it invasion, leader assassination, arming of terrorists etc etc. America being a rogue state is putting it nicely, it is far worse than a rogue state I am sure in the eyes of the vast bulk of the world that has suffered at its hands.

Does Denmark behave like America? Does Switzerland? Does Canada? America is completely out of synch with relatively normal nations. Also you seem to understand the term rogue due to the types of nations you listed. Countries like Syria and Iran are nothing compared to the genocide nations like North Korea, America or those who still think concentration camps and apartheid are fashionable. There are plenty of rogue nations, but the leader is obviously America. I would imagine the numbers of people killed either directly or indirectly by America is greater than all those other countries you suggested combined. It is numerically even worse when you factor in how the place was created too. North Korea kills millions domestically, but the US did the same in its early years and then it went on to carry out the murder spree internationally. North Korea is relatively benign except for the occasional missile launch. Now the same could not in a million years be suggested of America.

America being angry with Syria or Iran is an absurdity considering everything that it is. It chooses to be rogue, it could always choose to be a normal nation, but instead it chooses exceptionalism, which is another word to describe an out of control psychopath.

All of western Europe was sitting with their hands out post WWII and was pretty happy for a US policy that supported intervention. They were pretty happy to let their defense capabilities atrophy and have the US do the heavy lifting for 50 years during the cold war and still depend on US military support. Again when the European nations wanted to intervene in Libya they were sitting hat in hand for US assistance b/c even the UK didn't have the capability to neutralize out of date Libyan air defense w/o a large loss of life. The world has been very grateful when there have been humanitarian disasters and US service men and women are the first their to provide support. Personally I'd let the world go it alone and not lift a finger to help but for 60+ years American presidents have more than obliged the world to be its police. The world doesn't get to have it both ways. You can't ask for a nation to fund the rebuilding of your continent, secure it for half century, settle your internal conflicts and be the #1 contributor to humanitarian assistance then bitch and complain b/c you don't always like the way they go about it.

[Kirkland Laing]

A rogue nation is a nation that ignores the will of the international community and continues to do something the international community considers illegal. Like invading Iraq for instance.

So when a nation does what it thinks is in its best interest regardless of a international popularity contest its "rogue". Got it. Rogue nation is a dumb term. Iran, NK, Israel, Syria, China, US, UK and Russia aren't "rogue". They (or I should say their leaders) do what they think is in their best interests. Iran/NK think they should have nuclear capabilities, frankly I don't care nor do I blame them. Israel is surrounded by nations that would and have previously attacked them so I don't blame them for ensuring their own continued existance. China/US/Russia are all world powers that whether correctly or not believe they need to have hegemony over their proxies in order to prosper. There is nothing rogue about doing what we all do as humans every day and that is look out for #1.

Not an international popularity contest, an international treaty. Like the UN treaty. If you sign the UN treaty and then go off invading another country without agreement from the UN Security Council then you're going against the will of the international community and breaking the treaty you signed up to.

Or if you don't sign treaties that everybody else has signed up to like the chemical weapons treaty. Look at the small list of countries that haven't signed and you see the usual suspects when it comes to ignoring international law.

[VictorCharlie]

Not an international popularity contest, an international treaty. Like the UN treaty. If you sign the UN treaty and then go off invading another country without agreement from the UN Security Council then you're going against the will of the international community and breaking the treaty you signed up to.

Or if you don't sign treaties that everybody else has signed up to like the chemical weapons treaty. Look at the small list of countries that haven't signed and you see the usual suspects when it comes to ignoring international law.

Please name the specific treaty that the US signed that stipulates what makes a military action legal. Mind you we've previously pointed out that the UN Charter is not binding international law. Outside of the US Congress and President there isn't any other legal process for American military action. End of story. Call it immoral, unpopular, etc but trying to apply a legal basis to war is plain absurd.

[Kirkland Laing]

Not an international popularity contest, an international treaty. Like the UN treaty. If you sign the UN treaty and then go off invading another country without agreement from the UN Security Council then you're going against the will of the international community and breaking the treaty you signed up to.

Or if you don't sign treaties that everybody else has signed up to like the chemical weapons treaty. Look at the small list of countries that haven't signed and you see the usual suspects when it comes to ignoring international law.

Please name the specific treaty that the US signed that stipulates what makes a military action legal. Mind you we've previously pointed out that the UN Charter is not binding international law. Outside of the US Congress and President there isn't any other legal process for American military action. End of story. Call it immoral, unpopular, etc but trying to apply a legal basis to war is plain absurd.

I'll leave it to one of the world's foremost international lawyers to answer this :


BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

[El Kabong]

I'll leave it to one of the world's foremost international lawyers to answer this :


BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

Yeah Mr. "Food for Oil" is well beyond reproach.

You're an ignorant cunt, Saddam didn't abide by the rules and guidelines laid out for him by the UN post-Persian Gulf War, you know it, I know it, Kofi dumbass Annan knows it....ergo the war was good to go based on that alone. Go be a jackass elsewhere, I'm tired of your constant bellyaching you stupid twat

[Gandalf]

I'll leave it to one of the world's foremost international lawyers to answer this :


BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

Yeah Mr. "Food for Oil" is well beyond reproach.

You're an ignorant cunt, Saddam didn't abide by the rules and guidelines laid out for him by the UN post-Persian Gulf War, you know it, I know it, Kofi dumbass Annan knows it....ergo the war was good to go based on that alone. Go be a jackass elsewhere, I'm tired of your constant bellyaching you stupid twat

It's funny how Saddam could be placed under UN sanctions resulting in the tremendous suffering of people who had done no wrong and yet Israel has never had to endure UN sanctions. The main problem with the UN is the United States itself who exercises the veto and bullies to get its way more than any other nation. For America to then lie and go in and invade a pathetically weakened nation was the act of a despicable coward and bully. I think you are one of the few still defending the Iraq war, Lyle. Most were right all along and others have revised their views. Almost nobody believes it was a just war and the fall out largely proves it.

The fact that the war criminals still walk free speaks volumes and which unknown African is being tried in the Hague this week? What a joke.

[VictorCharlie]

It's funny how Saddam could be placed under UN sanctions resulting in the tremendous suffering of people who had done no wrong and yet Israel has never had to endure UN sanctions.

Miles, that statement is pretty indicative of why I think the UN is a sham. The US/China/Russia are going to vote against anything not in their own interests or even anything in favor of the other. They have no real authority or moral consistency to objectively say this is good, this is bad much less some false pretense of legality.

[Kirkland Laing]

I'll leave it to one of the world's foremost international lawyers to answer this :


BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

Yeah Mr. "Food for Oil" is well beyond reproach.

You're an ignorant cunt, Saddam didn't abide by the rules and guidelines laid out for him by the UN post-Persian Gulf War, you know it, I know it, Kofi dumbass Annan knows it....ergo the war was good to go based on that alone. Go be a jackass elsewhere, I'm tired of your constant bellyaching you stupid twat

What's up, brother cousin? What's this food for oil thing you're on about? And let me guess, in between multitasking you're now a qualified lawyer who's become an internationally famous expert in international law? Oh wait, no, you're a Neo-Confederate manchild ranting away in his mother's basement.

[walrus]

Not an international popularity contest, an international treaty. Like the UN treaty. If you sign the UN treaty and then go off invading another country without agreement from the UN Security Council then you're going against the will of the international community and breaking the treaty you signed up to.

Or if you don't sign treaties that everybody else has signed up to like the chemical weapons treaty. Look at the small list of countries that haven't signed and you see the usual suspects when it comes to ignoring international law.

Please name the specific treaty that the US signed that stipulates what makes a military action legal. Mind you we've previously pointed out that the UN Charter is not binding international law. Outside of the US Congress and President there isn't any other legal process for American military action. End of story. Call it immoral, unpopular, etc but trying to apply a legal basis to war is plain absurd.

Agreed, the UN is useless. What they did in Rwanda alone should discredit them. Slavery still goes on in parts of Africa, Christians being killed all over the Middle East and what has the UN done. All you America bashers should get down on yours knees and kiss Old Glory, if not, we are going to invade your country then give you billions of dollars to rebuild, so there.

[VictorCharlie]

I got good laugh from this one. Just for you Miles.

[VictorCharlie]

""Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." Annan

So the senior member of the biggest joke in the international community is upset no one asked his opinion first. Color me shocked but if you look at the quote, being in conformity with the charter is not a basis to call a military action illegal. The charter isn't binding international law. He also said "there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections" so while I don't believe the invasion right or necessary nor do I think a UN resolution amounts to squat but W did actually have a UN resolution to hang his hat on.

[Kirkland Laing]

""Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." Annan

So the senior member of the biggest joke in the international community is upset no one asked his opinion first. Color me shocked but if you look at the quote, being in conformity with the charter is not a basis to call a military action illegal. The charter isn't binding international law. He also said "there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections" so while I don't believe the invasion right or necessary nor do I think a UN resolution amounts to squat but W did actually have a UN resolution to hang his hat on.

The UN is only ineffective because the member with the biggest military and the longest history of military aggression routinely ignores the rules it signed up to. Bush spent two months trying to get a UN resolution authorising the invasion, failed, and gave up.


Earlier in the day, British and U.S. diplomats, facing certain defeat on the Security Council, withdrew a resolution that would have cleared the way for war. Though Bush on Sunday vowed another day of "working the phones," it quickly became clear that as many as 11 of 15 council members remained opposed and the effort was abandoned by 10 a.m.


The withdrawal of the resolution without a vote was a double climb-down for Bush. On Feb. 22, he had predicted victory at the United Nations, and on March 6 he said he wanted a vote regardless of the outcome.

[...]

Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," he said. "The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will."

War looms as Bush issues final warning | The Honolulu Advertiser | Hawaii's Newspaper