Explain this to me pleasePierre wrote:
while said faraway country has been unlawfully invaded by an aggressor who is known for its indiscriminate help to an archenemy...
I think he's talking about the US' unswerving support for state terrorists Israel.usmarine2007 wrote:
Explain this to me pleasePierre wrote:
while said faraway country has been unlawfully invaded by an aggressor who is known for its indiscriminate help to an archenemy...
Oh....because I get confused when I see unlawful.CameronPoe wrote:
I think he's talking about the US' unswerving support for state terrorists Israel.usmarine2007 wrote:
Explain this to me pleasePierre wrote:
while said faraway country has been unlawfully invaded by an aggressor who is known for its indiscriminate help to an archenemy...
danm right, get em out
The lawfullness is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe he should have said immoral or uncalled for or pointless or questionably motivated.usmarine2007 wrote:
Oh....because I get confused when I see unlawful.CameronPoe wrote:
I think he's talking about the US' unswerving support for state terrorists Israel.usmarine2007 wrote:
Explain this to me please
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-22 05:37:57)
or maybe he should STFU and stop justifying the spewing of hate.CameronPoe wrote:
The lawfullness is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe he should have said immoral.usmarine2007 wrote:
Oh....because I get confused when I see unlawful.CameronPoe wrote:
I think he's talking about the US' unswerving support for state terrorists Israel.
If you read what he wrote carefully I think you'll find he didn't justify the 'spewing of hate' anywhere. He was explaining why some muslims don't particularly care about what extremists do or say.usmarine2007 wrote:
or maybe he should STFU and stop justifying the spewing of hate.CameronPoe wrote:
The lawfullness is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe he should have said immoral.usmarine2007 wrote:
Oh....because I get confused when I see unlawful.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-22 05:40:08)
Now wait, you were just explaining what he said now I .......oh never mind, I will let him explain.CameronPoe wrote:
If you read what he wrote carefully I think you'll find he didn't justify the 'spewing of hate' anywhere. He was explaining why some muslims don't particularly care about what extremists do or say.usmarine2007 wrote:
or maybe he should STFU and stop justifying the spewing of hate.CameronPoe wrote:
The lawfullness is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe he should have said immoral.
It was unlawful. The arguments made to try to give the war any sort of legitimacy were very well made, but ultimately complete rubbish.usmarine2007 wrote:
Oh....because I get confused when I see unlawful.CameronPoe wrote:
I think he's talking about the US' unswerving support for state terrorists Israel.usmarine2007 wrote:
Explain this to me please
Wait, CAM said he was talking about Israel......oh fuck it.Bertster7 wrote:
It was unlawful. The arguments made to try to give the war any sort of legitimacy were very well made, but ultimately complete rubbish.usmarine2007 wrote:
Oh....because I get confused when I see unlawful.CameronPoe wrote:
I think he's talking about the US' unswerving support for state terrorists Israel.
well, bertster, although the motives or reasons behind the Iraq invasion were certainly questionable ( if not completely made up ), the war itself was legal according to the laws of the US. If I remember correctly, due process was followed when the decision was made.
Thus, "unlawful" ( or illegal ) is probably the incorrect term.
EDIT: If you were refering to Iraq, that is. But since the US has neither invaded Israel nor Britain lately, that's probably what you were refering to...
Thus, "unlawful" ( or illegal ) is probably the incorrect term.
EDIT: If you were refering to Iraq, that is. But since the US has neither invaded Israel nor Britain lately, that's probably what you were refering to...
But you said you were talking about Iraq.usmarine2007 wrote:
Wait, CAM said he was talking about Israel......oh fuck it.Bertster7 wrote:
It was unlawful. The arguments made to try to give the war any sort of legitimacy were very well made, but ultimately complete rubbish.usmarine2007 wrote:
Oh....because I get confused when I see unlawful.
The "unlawfully" that you seemed upset about was in relation to Iraq. It was you who mentioned Iraq, I don't see where the confusion arises.Pierre wrote:
while said faraway country has been unlawfully invaded by an aggressor who is known for its indiscriminate help to an archenemy...usmarine2007 wrote:
Yet that anger could not be found BEFORE we resumed hostilities in Iraq when they cut off that one dudes head. Explain that to me?
The legality of the war in Iraq is very dubious, no matter how good the UK and USs legal teams were. The arguments made based on resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 were very weak arguments however well they were presented. The fact is 1441 was the only resolution that was relevant and it did not authorise military action against Iraq - if it had done the French would have vetoed it.
Thanks all for your replies. You all write faster that I can .usmarine2007 wrote:
Explain this to me pleasePierre wrote:
while said faraway country has been unlawfully invaded by an aggressor who is known for its indiscriminate help to an archenemy...
Well, USmarine, you know what I mean (see Cam's first reply ^^), but in light of #363 I can't and won't elaborate that topic in this thread. It's been said before, and you know my point on that topic. But yes, it was unlawful to invade Iraq.
Back on topic.
As a lot of posters in this thread already pointed out, the majority of the Muslim population in Europe is westernized and don't see this "threat", they want to become successful citizens, with wife, kids (2), house, vacation in the sun, etc. Don't forget the PSP and iPod. They go to the church on a weekly basis just as we did when we were kids, but that's all. Religion is important but from a distance. But some things are important, e.g. their respect for their prophet, and they will not like it when someone makes fun of that. OTOH, they will not go into a fight for it either.
They will not like it when they see someone killed in Iraq, and they will disprove of it, but don't expect them to riot in the streets In Europe or to join the US Army to fight the insurgents, just the same as i will not like it when I see some christian killed by some Hindoes in e.g. India but I won't riot either.
Hmmm, I must disagree with this one: the fact that an invasion is "permitted by" the law of the invading country (what would you expect?) (how is such thing possible) does not mean an invasion is "legal" (not speaking of morality here).B.Schuss wrote:
well, bertster, although the motives or reasons behind the Iraq invasion were certainly questionable ( if not completely made up ), the war itself was legal according to the laws of the US. If I remember correctly, due process was followed when the decision was made.
Thus, "unlawful" ( or illegal ) is probably the incorrect term.
EDIT: If you were refering to Iraq, that is. But since the US has neither invaded Israel nor Britain lately, that's probably what you were refering to...
E.g. the invasion of Kuwait in 90 by Iraq was illegal, the reaction of the Coalition forces was legal as backed up bu the UN resolutions.
Iraq 2003 was never agreed upon by the UN, no such term as 'invasion' or occupation' was used, so therefor there was no legal framework to justify the action.
Edit: spelling.
Last edited by Pierre (2007-01-22 06:11:49)
You're right, this is the same kind of idle threats that we heard in 1933. All this "death to the west, we need to invade to take your .... "wives and booty"." is what I see to be just the same kind of speech used by Hitler before and after he rose to power. See, the lesson there is that sometimes a minority can command a majority to do stupid things. Stupid things like kill 6 million jews (and some 20 million soviets, which some how don't get museums or monuments or any other shit because they weren't pussies and fought back). I know not all muslims are like this, and I won't say even a majority of muslims are like this... but neither were the Germans. Don't believe me? Look at the recent election in Palestine, where the palestinians (a peaceful people) chose an organization that views the strapping of explosives to children as a "political tool". The point is, it doesn't have to be the majority of a people who believe something before it becomes dangerous, as we have seen it only takes ONE psycho to plunge an entire people into ignorant rage.CameronPoe wrote:
The same kind of thing happened at one mosque in Ireland (we have a very small number of muslims here) - what happened? The congregation walked out in disgust.ATG wrote:
These are things being said in mainstream mosques in England Cameron.
This is the mainstream thinking of Islam.
Why deny the obvious?
Not all muslims think like these weirdos. There are two or three muslims where I work - they don't hold any such ridiculous beliefs. One of them even drinks. This is just typical scaremongering akin to 'the jews are evil' circa 1933. Tarring every muslim with the one brush is not nice, it's actually disgraceful: bordering on racist/'religionist' (much like the fuckers in those video clips).
Please learn history, not just recent history. There was never a peace treaty signed, just a cease fire with certain terms and conditions after 1991. Those terms were broken many times, especially in 1998. When you break cease fire agreements, the war will continue.Pierre wrote:
Hmmm, I must disagree with this one: the fact that an invasion is "permitted by" the law of the invading country (what would you expect?) (how is such thing possible) does not mean an invasion is "legal" (not speaking of morality here).
E.g. the invasion of Kuwait in 90 by Iraq was illegal, the reaction of the Coalition forces was legal as backed up bu the UN resolutions.
Iraq 2003 was never agreed upon by the UN, no such term as 'invasion' or occupation' was used, so therefor there was no legal framework to justify the action.
Edit: spelling.
Not at all.usmarine2007 wrote:
Please learn history, not just recent history. There was never a peace treaty signed, just a cease fire with certain terms and conditions after 1991. Those terms were broken many times, especially in 1998. When you break cease fire agreements, the war will continue.Pierre wrote:
Hmmm, I must disagree with this one: the fact that an invasion is "permitted by" the law of the invading country (what would you expect?) (how is such thing possible) does not mean an invasion is "legal" (not speaking of morality here).
E.g. the invasion of Kuwait in 90 by Iraq was illegal, the reaction of the Coalition forces was legal as backed up bu the UN resolutions.
Iraq 2003 was never agreed upon by the UN, no such term as 'invasion' or occupation' was used, so therefor there was no legal framework to justify the action.
Edit: spelling.
The forces the ceasefire was between were different for starters. So that cannot technically provide any justification for war. It doesn't seem like you are familliar with the relevant UN resolutions that made the original war legal and provided no justification for the war in 2003.
The fact there was no peace treaty signed is completely, absolutely and totally irrellevant from a legal perspective. The first war was conducted by the UN, who did not authorise the war in 2003. Therefore it is a different war with different sides. The UN have called the war illegal and they are the only ones with the power to make such a war legal.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-22 06:25:35)
well, that obviously depends on wether you accept the UN as a kind of meta-government and grant it authority above your own.Pierre wrote:
Hmmm, I must disagree with this one: the fact that an invasion is "permitted by" the law of the invading country (what would you expect?) (how is such thing possible) does not mean an invasion is "legal" (not speaking of morality here).B.Schuss wrote:
well, bertster, although the motives or reasons behind the Iraq invasion were certainly questionable ( if not completely made up ), the war itself was legal according to the laws of the US. If I remember correctly, due process was followed when the decision was made.
Thus, "unlawful" ( or illegal ) is probably the incorrect term.
EDIT: If you were refering to Iraq, that is. But since the US has neither invaded Israel nor Britain lately, that's probably what you were refering to...
E.g. the invasion of Kuwait in 90 by Iraq was illegal, the reaction of the Coalition forces was legal as backed up bu the UN resolutions.
Iraq 2003 was never agreed upon by the UN, no such term as 'invasion' or occupation' was used, so therefor there was no legal framework to justify the action.
Edit: spelling.
The US simply chose not to, and as unfortunate as that may be, from a legal point of view, there is nothing wrong with that.
Moreover, if I remember correctly, the UN charter specificially acknowledges the right of every nation to defend itself against an unprovoked attack. Of course, an argument can be made that Iraq never posed such a threat to the US, but I guess the US government thought differently.
It's all a matter of interpretation. And as long as the UN is mainly a forum for debate and negotiation, and has no real means to sanction charter or resolution violations by important member states ( such as the permanent members of the security council ), that is not going to change, unfortunately.
EDIT: the UN is long due for reform, but I doubt that the superpowers USA, China, Russia and the other permanent members of the SC would be willing to give up that much of their national power, even if it is for a greater cause.
In the end, national interests almost always outweigh those of the international community, especially when it's about the superpowers...
How? Just because the UN makes rules but fails to enforce them, or, adds to the problem is no reason to call the enforcement of the cease fire illegal.Bertster7 wrote:
Not at all.usmarine2007 wrote:
Please learn history, not just recent history. There was never a peace treaty signed, just a cease fire with certain terms and conditions after 1991. Those terms were broken many times, especially in 1998. When you break cease fire agreements, the war will continue.Pierre wrote:
Hmmm, I must disagree with this one: the fact that an invasion is "permitted by" the law of the invading country (what would you expect?) (how is such thing possible) does not mean an invasion is "legal" (not speaking of morality here).
E.g. the invasion of Kuwait in 90 by Iraq was illegal, the reaction of the Coalition forces was legal as backed up bu the UN resolutions.
Iraq 2003 was never agreed upon by the UN, no such term as 'invasion' or occupation' was used, so therefor there was no legal framework to justify the action.
Edit: spelling.
The forces the ceasefire was beteen were different for starters. So that cannot technically provide any justification for war. It doesn't seem like you are familliar with the relevant UN resolutions that made the original war legal and provided no justification for the war in 2003.
The fact there was no peace treaty signed is completely, absolutely and totally irrellevant from a legal perspective.
Seeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrvvvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeedddddddddddddd!usmarine2007 wrote:
or maybe he should STFU and stop justifying the spewing of hate.CameronPoe wrote:
The lawfullness is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe he should have said immoral.usmarine2007 wrote:
Oh....because I get confused when I see unlawful.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I bet i contribute more to the British economy than your chav ass.Sh4d0wF0x14 wrote:
danm right, get em out
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
What does chav mean?m3thod wrote:
I bet i contribute more to the British economy than your chav ass.Sh4d0wF0x14 wrote:
danm right, get em out
Vandals who destroy things for the sake of it, hang out in parks in groups of 30 drinking cider intimidating people they greatly out number, often live of benefits and contribute little to society. Every country probaly has their own variant.usmarine2007 wrote:
What does chav mean?m3thod wrote:
I bet i contribute more to the British economy than your chav ass.Sh4d0wF0x14 wrote:
danm right, get em out
Last edited by crimson_grunt (2007-01-22 06:31:43)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chavusmarine2007 wrote:
What does chav mean?m3thod wrote:
I bet i contribute more to the British economy than your chav ass.Sh4d0wF0x14 wrote:
danm right, get em out
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
What do you mean how? That's like saying because there is a ceasefire between the US and North Korea that it's ok for Russia to attack them (I'm pretty much plucking nations at random here). Sounds stupid, but it's the same thing. They are different sides.usmarine2007 wrote:
How? Just because the UN makes rules but fails to enforce them, or, adds to the problem is no reason to call the enforcement of the cease fire illegal.Bertster7 wrote:
Not at all.usmarine2007 wrote:
Please learn history, not just recent history. There was never a peace treaty signed, just a cease fire with certain terms and conditions after 1991. Those terms were broken many times, especially in 1998. When you break cease fire agreements, the war will continue.
The forces the ceasefire was beteen were different for starters. So that cannot technically provide any justification for war. It doesn't seem like you are familliar with the relevant UN resolutions that made the original war legal and provided no justification for the war in 2003.
The fact there was no peace treaty signed is completely, absolutely and totally irrellevant from a legal perspective.
The fact that the US participated in the first Gulf war is irrelevant. They were not the official body that Iraq were at war with and hence had a ceasefire with. The UN were the only ones who could put an end to the ceasefire.
I am very familliar with the case for war put by Lord Goldsmith and Ambassador Negroponte and it sounds like a strong case until you actually read the text of the resolutions, which I'm guessing you haven't done.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-22 06:33:59)