Are you for or against intervening in Syria?

[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.

[walrus]

Gandalf, May I inquire as to what country you reside in. You could even be American, many of us are anti-American. By the way, the UN has been all over Israel for years with more than 60 resolutions. I would say, if you want to make this discussion astute you should avoid sourcing one of the more corrupt and useless organizations in the world, the UN and their Blue Helmet troops who allow genocide to occur under their watch. The US should put a sanction on the UN and have them set up camp in some shithole like France.

[Gandalf]

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.

It is the closest we have to law. However, it is clearly open to abuse and needs reforming. As I say, China and Russia are on the whole pretty small fry abusers as compared to the US and its notorious veto on anything concerning Israel.

Where one resides is irrelevant to any argument. My nationality is likewise irrelevant. I don't give my country a free pass and neither the one where I live either. Anything goes with me, I speak it as I see. However, Korea is pretty dull politically. There are internal things of interest, but nobody on here would be interested. Property prices fell 4% last year. Captivating, I know. Things occasionally get more interesting when former Presidents jump off mountains or North Korea throws a wobbler, but certainly nothing on the scale of countries like America, Britain, or Israel which could really do with a few former leaders jumping off of mountains.

[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

[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.

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.

When America pays out billions of dollars in reconstruction money who gets the billions of dollars? Who do they pay those billions to?

[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.

When America pays out billions of dollars in reconstruction money who gets the billions of dollars? Who do they pay those billions to?

just about any shady figure in said country, usually funneled to Swiss accounts.