KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Do you have any reccolection of there being a United Nations and stuff like that? Just how many wars has the UN "legalized"? The only one I can think of is Korea, and only because Russia threw a hissie fit and boycotted some key sessions. If they had been present the war in Korea never would have been "sanctioned". And how many wars have occurred that they did not "legalize". Give me a break. Oh, yes, fuck the UN and your world government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 error error error Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Again my history is foggy on this, but I thought North Korea invaded South Korea, and we came to South Korea's aid. Perhaps #1 should have "or one of our allies" ammended to it. I guess you could consider Iraq II legal from the point of characteristic #1 if you considered gulf war II just a continuation of I. But that would be pushing it, since I's purpose, defending Kuwait had already been well accomplished. I'll agree that "legal" is a continuum and can vary by beholder, but still, your second paragraph is total bullshit. Aggressively invading another country is way less legal than responding in self-defense or in the defense of allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I won't put words in Bugs mouth (please give us your take too Bug!), But for my part, characteristics of illegal wars would be: 1. invading another country that has not attacked us. North Korea seems legal as did WWII. North Korea never attacked us. Anyway, Illegal War is a bullshit PC liberal term. Legal according to whose laws? An attacked country will never say the war is "legal", now will they? The war in Iraq is just as "legal" as any other war the US has started, or any other country for that matter. OK. So to boil it down, are you saying that we should invade anyone we want if they have something we want to take? Do you think there ARE any differences between the way we got into WWII and Iraq? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 ....Do you have any reccolection of there being a United Nations and stuff like that? .... Bug - if the UN is your acid test for a just war, how do you reconcile Kosovo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Just how many wars has the UN "legalized"? The only one I can think of is Korea, and only because Russia threw a hissie fit and boycotted some key sessions. If they had been present the war in Korea never would have been "sanctioned". And how many wars have occurred that they did not "legalize". Give me a break. Oh, yes, fuck the UN and your world government. Allow me to paraphrase what you just said. Feel free to correct the parts that are not accurate. "I love nationalism and ignorance. They bread contempt and suspicion. From that we can justify any war. While in war we can dismantle civil liberties in the name of national security. Eventually we can completely eliminate the two party system and get down to business." Am I close? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
builder206 Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 charteristics of illegal wars would be: 1. invading another country that has not attacked us. I don’t think it is strictly necessary under all conditions that one country must attack another for it to be legal. There are some legal grounds whereby a country can attack another if the attacked country is harboring an active enemy or is actively aiding an enemy. It would have been legal to attack Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Weaponizing Cuba with quick-launch nukes was tantamount to an act of war. The degree of destabilization was both so rapid and so extreme that it was like massing an army at a border: it would be reasonable to conclude that an attack was imminent. There would be no other reason to take such drastic action (by the Sovs). In particular, the destabilization feature most warlike was the drastic reduction in warning time the U.S. would have had if the Sovs launched nukes from Cuba. Political considerations caused Kennedy to defer invasion as not the best choice but it would have been legal even though Cuba had not attacked the U.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
builder206 Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 (edited) what's a "legal war" you moron? In the history of diplomacy, at least among the Western nations, there are treaties and agreements defining in general the conditions under which war may and may not be fought. There are laws *between* nations. From these historic conditions we speak of the “legality of war.” Edited November 1, 2007 by builder206 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 ....Do you have any reccolection of there being a United Nations and stuff like that? .... Bug - if the UN is your acid test for a just war, how do you reconcile Kosovo? "Acid test" is an over statement. But having some effort to communiccate between governments as we did with Afganistan is better than no effort to do so or ignoring world condemnation as we did in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Yes, as already agreed, #1 is a bit loose. I think the basic idea of my #1 is self-defense. Though that's a bit hard to codify, and gets into KkkKk's gray areas. But please don't write any more about this "imminent" stuff and draw Peter Puget into this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lI1|1! Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 this thread was supposed to be about male republican politicians who vote against gay rights legislation having anal sex with male prostitutes and then saying they're not gay. why do people have to bring the war into it again? don't we have enough threads about the war??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Again my history is foggy on this, but I thought North Korea invaded South Korea, and we came to South Korea's aid. Perhaps #1 should have "or one of our allies" ammended to it. South Korea was one of our "allies"? How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Thank God that everyone waited for Germany to complete its rearming process, and wait on the sideline while their massive conventional superiority relative to Germany diminished, or imagine the bloodshed that could have resulted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Fair enough. I think this guy having his gay sex is just fine and dandy. No complaints, as long as he isn't hurtin no one. That guy extorting him for money is repugnant! When we get something happening like this to two-faced politicians though it is quite nice in a "truth in advertising" type of way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 OK. So to boil it down, are you saying that we should invade anyone we want if they have something we want to take? Do you think there ARE any differences between the way we got into WWII and Iraq? We came to the defense of Kuwait in the first Gulf War one and defeated Iraq and had support of much of the world community. We then imposed terms of surrender and worked with the UN on resolutions - both of which Iraq repeatedly violated. We had every right to go in there at any time based on this. It was perfectly "legal" by definitions some of you have bandied about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 this thread was supposed to be about male republican politicians who vote against gay rights legislation having anal sex with male prostitutes and then saying they're not gay. why do people have to bring the war into it again? don't we have enough threads about the war??? we also have enough threads about those "hypocrite" gay republicans. BFD. it's thread drift. deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Yes Iraq and Iran were/are certain to be titans with world domination right around the corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Dang. Just when KKK is getting coherent I have to work. Iran with nukes = disaster. Where is Israel's air force when you need them? I give them till Feb. Then the bombs will fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Dang. Just when KKK is getting coherent I have to work. Iran with nukes = disaster. Where is Israel's air force when you need them? I give them till Feb. Then the bombs will fall. Don't worry, they're working out the details as we speak, I'm sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 13 Baby Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I'm sure the KKK guy will be first in line at the recruiting office. He's tough - he rides his bike in the rain! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I won't put words in Bugs mouth (please give us your take too Bug!), But for my part, characteristics of illegal wars would be: 1. invading another country that has not attacked us. North Korea seems legal as did WWII. North Korea never attacked us. Anyway, Illegal War is a bullshit PC liberal term. Legal according to whose laws? An attacked country will never say the war is "legal", now will they? The war in Iraq is just as "legal" as any other war the US has started, or any other country for that matter. Sounds like at least one legal eagle on this forum needs a little refresher on basic U.S. law. Per the U.S. Constitution, treaties ratified by Congress become U.S. law, enforceable in U.S. courts. The U.S. is signatory to the Geneva Conventions, which it also ratified, so that is part of U.S. law. Treaties can be non-self executing (they require further, more specific legislation to be passed to enact them) or non-self executing (they do not; the law is explicitly spelled out in the treaty). The Geneva Conventions (there are 4) are of the latter kind. In a recent example of treaty law in practice, the Supreme Court found the military commissions system at Guantanamo invalid and in violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of detainees just last year(Hamdan v. Rumsfeld). Specifically, the court found that the military commissions system violated the following prohibitions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including...those placed hors de combat by…detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. To this end the following acts are…prohibited at any time and in any place: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; © outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. The Geneva Conventions also prohibit the targeting of and indescriminate killing of civilians, another area of 'controversy' lately. Next time, do your homework, sport. What is reality 'in your mind' doesn't really matter much in the real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I won't put words in Bugs mouth (please give us your take too Bug!), But for my part, characteristics of illegal wars would be: 1. invading another country that has not attacked us. North Korea seems legal as did WWII. North Korea never attacked us. Anyway, Illegal War is a bullshit PC liberal term. Legal according to whose laws? An attacked country will never say the war is "legal", now will they? The war in Iraq is just as "legal" as any other war the US has started, or any other country for that matter. Sounds like at least one legal eagle on this forum needs a little refresher on basic U.S. law. Per the U.S. Constitution, treaties ratified by Congress become U.S. law, enforceable in U.S. courts. The U.S. is signatory to the Geneva Conventions, which it also ratified, so that is part of U.S. law. Treaties can be non-self executing (they require further, more specific legislation to be passed to enact them) or non-self executing (they do not; the law is explicitly spelled out in the treaty). The Geneva Conventions (there are 4) are of the latter kind. In a recent example of treaty law in practice, the Supreme Court found the military commissions system at Guantanamo invalid and in violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of detainees just last year(Hamdan v. Rumsfeld). Specifically, the court found that the military commissions system violated the following prohibitions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including...those placed hors de combat by…detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. To this end the following acts are…prohibited at any time and in any place: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; © outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. The Geneva Conventions also prohibit the targeting of and indescriminate killing of civilians, another area of 'controversy' lately. Next time, do your homework, sport. What is reality 'in your mind' doesn't really matter much in the real world. Not that he'd read this even if the "ignore" (or "I can't take being made an ass of all day") feature wasn't in use, but just in case.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 non-self executing (they require further, more specific legislation to be passed to enact them) or non-self executing (they do not; the law is explicitly spelled out in the treaty) nitpicking is so much fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Not that he'd read this even if the "ignore" (or "I can't take being made an ass of all day") feature wasn't in use, but just in case.... I don't respond to that bloviating, jizz-garging, bitch-tit-flaunting, Tiger-mountain-king-kong, self-congratulatory sack of raw sewage. Nice try though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
builder206 Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 bloviating, jizz-garging, bitch-tit-flaunting, Tiger-mountain-king-kong, self-congratulatory sack of raw sewage. That's the ticket! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.