Iraq invasion not illegal (2 Viewers)

[katie_tully]

- scratches her arse -




vote me for prime minister.

 

[leetom]

If the war on/in Iraq has showed us anything, it's that the U.S clearly lacks the ability to maintain order in a post-invasion country. You've gotta have a soft spot for those Iraqi resistance guys, they're giving the Americans hell and so they should be. Let it be a lesson, as Annan said, for the world to learn from- you've got to have the U.N's support to do it properly.

 

[Ziff]

The UN argument has been done before in the Iraq war thread...

 

[tWiStEdD]

1. Say goodbye to 50 years of international law

2. Say goodbye to 50 years of diplomacy...we might as well start an arms race with indonesia and have a war ...

did i say that?
no international law is enforceable.
dont say war crimes are, because they're not. they're only enforced on the losers. that's blatantly obvious. you can do what you want, as long as you win.

if you really that the lack of the UN would lead to arms races, then you have issues.

 

[leetom]

People have had the UN's support and stuffed up many times...
People haven't had the UN's support and suceeded.

The UN is a farce.

The only significant stuff up I can think of with the endorsement of the U.N was the Korean War. But what has anybody achieved without it?

 

[leetom]

So the U.N has made a considerable number of stuff ups, but it is still the key to attaining some sort of stability throughout the world because it decides just what is illegal and legal on an international scale. It is respected by everybody (exept U.S, Israel, Australia) and is the best thing we have for putting an end to the crazy stuff that goes on.

The 'Coalition of the Willing' isn't a better option.

I wouldn't say the U.N has failed in Israel. It has done everything it can to stop Israel screwing the Palestineans. Most recent being the attempt to get Israel's wall declared illegal. It would of been successful too, had the U.S, Australia, Israel and a few bananna republics propped up by the U.S hadn't voted against it. As you can see, the U.N doesn't fail , the actions of some of it's permanent members fail the U.N.

As for Sudan, does anyone know why the U.N hasn't sent in their own force into Darfur? For weeks I just sat watching the crisis unfold and all the U.N did was warn the Sudanese government that they had 30 days to do something about it. It seemed like a very lazy decision. Are there any plans to deploy peacekeepers into the region now?

 

[leetom]

You're either with the land grabbers or the Palestineans

 

[tWiStEdD]

leetom:
you have no idea about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, none whatsoever. Read up on it, focus on the history.

Asquithian:
Ever heard of cynicism?
I dont believe in the form of international law and international diplomacy has been effective. Law needs to be enforceable to be effective (you know this, you're well into your LLB) and if it is not enforceable it is not effective.
International is not enforceable, ergo not effective.

Did you know that the Americans (specifically General Le May and Robert McNamara) fire-bombed numberous Japanese cities during WW2?
Keeping in mind what japanese houses were made of at the time, i'd say this was clearly a war crime.
McNamara said that had they lost the war then they would be the ones up in front of the ad hoc war crimes tribunal.

I'm cynical because of this fact. Ergo, my comment on war crimes. Comprende?

Furthermore, do you really think we could beat the Indonesians? We've got a token force, at best. Poor example, but i know where you're coming from... I explained my reasons above.

 

[leetom]

I have a pretty good knowledge of the history of the Palestine/Israel situation. How can you assume I don't?

All I did was metion the wall being built by Israel and the question of its legality.

 

[thorrnydevil]

The UN is a waste of time. Yes, they do some good humanitarian work, but apart from that they don't do a thing.

On the Israel/Palestine issue I have to agree with Leetom. The Israelis come into a country, kill thousands, and then claim the land there own and never recognise the fact there was a State there before them. Now, I'm not anti-semitic, but they have really put there foot in it this time. The fact that they are a "misplaced" peoples doesn't give them the right to kill others.

 

[leetom]

I have a pretty good knowledge of the history of the Palestine/Israel situation. How can you assume I don't?

All I did was metion the wall being built by Israel and the question of its legality.

And your sig is crap, of course Latham will be learning to manage an economy the same way everybody else has too. He also has an experienced team behind team.

Howard learnt a hard lesson when it came to managing an economy...

 

[Ziff]

Yeah, international law is based more "morals" than "enforcement". You forget that when nations break international laws any of the following can happen:
- Loss of international status for that nation
- Other nations break diplomatic ties
- Sanctions

etc, etc, etc...

A law doesn't need to be enforceable to be effective, there are many other ways to achieve effectiveness and for the better part, the UN and other regional organisations are helping nations keep in line with international law in some way.

Your legal studies view of the world and international law is somewhat flawed, international relations is an enormously complex area that can't be simplified down as you have done from which you have drawn an erroneous conclusion.

 

[mervvyn]

Yeah, international law is based more "morals" than "enforcement". You forget that when nations break international laws any of the following can happen:
- Loss of international status for that nation
- Other nations break diplomatic ties
- Sanctions

etc, etc, etc...

A law doesn't need to be enforceable to be effective, there are many other ways to achieve effectiveness and for the better part, the UN and other regional organisations are helping nations keep in line with international law in some way.

Your legal studies view of the world and international law is somewhat flawed, international relations is an enormously complex area that can't be simplified down as you have done from which you have drawn an erroneous conclusion.

Exactly - there are benefits to obeying international laws and agreements. By breaching one of those laws, the country will be less trusted, and particularly for smaller countries, shat upon through sanctions. Iraq after Gulf I for example.
The problems of effectiveness only arise when large countries like the US, Russia or China tread the line with regards to laws, or flaunt them, and when the country's government doesn't give a rat's anyway, like North Korea.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Like Johnny said, the UN is a great organisation. I think that while ever the UN has its 5 pernament SC members and they can veto ANY decision then its useless. The UN was created 50 years ago, it needs to updated, majorly.

As long as the five permanent members hold such power the UN will not reach it's full potential. China, America, Britain, France and Russia only look out for their own interests.

Furthermore, since International Law cannot be really enforced (not including persuasion, trade embargos etc) except through the Security Council then only the big bullies of the playground are untouchable.

And I still feel ripped off that Australia wasn't admitted to the Security Council because we fought in World War 2.

 

[thorrnydevil]

As long as the five permanent members hold such power the UN will not reach it's full potential. China, America, Britain, France and Russia only look out for their own interests.

Furthermore, since International Law cannot be really enforced (not including persuasion, trade embargos etc) except through the Security Council then only the big bullies of the playground are untouchable.

And I still feel ripped off that Australia wasn't admitted to the Security Council because we fought in World War 2.

I know, its totally crap that we don't have a pernament seat on the SC!!! The French do, and they were bloody well invaded and got taken over! Its total bullshit.

 

[katie_tully]

jobpredictor.com predicts me as the next prime minister.
HOORAH.

 

[paper cup]

I know, its totally crap that we don't have a pernament seat on the SC!!! The French do, and they were bloody well invaded and got taken over! Its total bullshit.

it's not that simple, we haven't been around for long enough. we were a former colony for god's sake.

 

[Kulazzi]

jobpredictor.com predicts me as the next prime minister.
HOORAH.

congrats. I'm supposed to be a brain surgeon =/.

But you know what the funny thing is? Each time I type your name, presuming that it is katie tully, your ideal job comes up as a bearded lady in a circus not as the prime minister I'm serious. I'd ask everyone else to try it.

 

[thorrnydevil]

Yeah, so was 25% of the world at one stage. The US was a colony and they have a pernament seat. Parts of China were colonised, they have a pernament seat.

 

[thorrnydevil]

jobpredictor.com predicts me as the next prime minister.
HOORAH.

At first I was a dog walker, but the second time I put my name in it said Paleantologist, then Panto Dame and the finally Dodgem Driver. Maybe I'll be an "occupation nomad." It said my brother will be a suicide bomber, a friend will be a Trained Assasin and the smartest girl in my grade will be a "complete and utter nutter"...which she is now anyway.