Are you for or against intervening in Syria?

[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.

[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?

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

How about American corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel? The corporations Cheney and Rumsfeld used to run?