Traitors Aren't Welcome in Canada

Wow, took a while but I AR'ed every one of em.

Aby, I find all of this extremely offensive. Seriously.

These are basically personal attacks and against every rule of thumb for posts (and most rules of decency). Your bigotted remarks are entirely uncalled for and I hope they ban you for good.

And please, before you argue about the word "Bigot" look it up.

.

Why is this thread resurected? Been there... argued that... hehe

Alby hasnt made a post since March... how bout we let a sleeping dog lie?

Billy's right. I got suckered into a zombie thread. Arrrgh!

I understand this is a hotly debated subject and wanted to remind everyone to please refrain from personally attacking those who may have differing opinions than you. Also, the hate speech imagery from this newly resurrected thread has been deleted.

Damn it!

All these necroposts are drinving me nuts!

Aplogies to everyone but the idiot who started this mess.



Edit: Here is a suggestion for Jeska.

Once you have hit "quote" to reply to a message (often done in great haste), there is absolutely nowhere (that I can see) in the interface where it tells you that the post you are replying to is in fact quite old.

You have to actually finish your post before you get that info, and even then you have to look back at the original post. I know it is our repsonsibility to check that, but people being what they are, it is often the case that the button is hit in a blink of an eye.

Since the original post is copied into the editor, how about making sure that the date of the orignial post is also copied into the editor in some fashion or present in the interface while one is composing ones bon mots? If this is already the case maybe have it highlighted in red or bigger type cause I dont see it and it woudl be truly helpful to have.

just a suggestion.

*comes in to the undead thread in full zombie costume*

BRRRRRRAAAAAAINNNNNNS!!! BRRRRRAAAAAAAAIIIIIIINNNNNNNSSSSSSS!!!!!

*looks around a bit, looks in the thread, and stares at Alby's icon for a bit*

*shuffles off, evidently not finding her preferred food anywhere near this thread*

BRRRRRRAAAAAAINNNNNNS!!!
BRRRRRAAAAAAAAIIIIIIINNNNNNNSSSSSSS!!!!!

Well interestingly enough, international law is sort of a consensus playing field. And really when it comes to war, there is no applicable international law to tell a country when it cannot go to war. Yes the US acted without the backing of the UN, but that does not really make the war in iraq unjust, illegal or immoral, it just means the US made a unilateral policy decision that its interests were endangered by Saddam Hussien.

War is never, ever, a pleasant or pleasing thing, and what frightens me most about the mentality that war can be illegal, unjust and immoral is the corrolary proposition that there is a a "just, legal, and moral" war. In war young people die. In war innocent people die. In most any war, but especially in modern war, collateral damage to a civilian population is inevitable. War is a sickening and god awful thing, and we should be very very careful when we unleash it. Sometimes war is necessary to serve the policy interests of the country. War can be a very effective way are resolving politcal conflicts (ask the Nazis, or the Tsarist Russians, or the Somalis or Napoleon). The best deterrent to war is to understand all it entails, and then ask, is this what we want to do. Do we wish to unchain this hell uopn X Y or Z?

Usually the answer would be no.

So to return from that tangent, there are no rules governing who can declare war on who legally. There are rules regarding the conduct of war, and vehicles by which international bodies can condemn a country for declaring war. But there really is not an illegal war per say. The UN is not a governement with any soveriegn power.

What Bush did was make an executive determination that it was in the best interest of the US to pursue military operations in Iraq. We can argue all we want about whether this is correct or not. I personally do not agree with Mr. Bush on this. I voted againts him. He was elected. So I am stuck with the assumption that more americans support military operations in Iraq than are against them. Its democracy-sometimes you are outvoted.
But the debate is whether we should be in Iraq, not whether the war is illegal, immoral, or unjust.

Also these are U.S. (and allied troops) not MR. Bush's Army.

Now to the poor guy running to Canada. He volunteered to join the Army. I think we know from an early age what it is the army does. He signed up and now wishes to avoid fighting. An illegal order is one that calls for a soldier to commit a specific violation of the geneva convention or to engage in conduct unbecoming US serviceman. Simply being ordered to fight in a war that you think is unjust is not an illegal order.

He is, in fact a deserter, not a traitor. What I want to know is how he is going to face the guys next to him and explain what he did? Say what you will, Solicers do not fight for political reasons, they fight for the guy next to them.

wrong

right

(he he)




-Sponsored by the idiot who is willing to CONTINUE this mess

How can you be old enough to make a post that long and yet have no knowledge of treaties, laws or the US Constitution?

...and here I thought this was a thread containing news that Karl Rove was running to Canada...

*shrug*

I have to agree with Jake on this .. this is my understanding of how war works from a "legal" side. My focus in school was more the motivations for war and prehaps more importantly the motivations not to have a war. Anyhow , here goes.

War that is unsanctioned by the UN is not "Illegal" even by international law. The UN wasnt given that authority.

None of the large nations involved in creating it were willing to give up that Soveriegn right.

Of course World Consesus is that it was unjust for the UN to step outside the per vue of the securtiy council and to use the history of IRAQ violation UN security resolutions as a pretex for war. So definitely the US acted against consensus of most of the rest of the security council.

Whether its a legal war in the context of the US constitution .. is also seperate from the international question. I beleive the international tradition is that the aggressor must inform its opponent of its intent to attack. This was the outrage against Japan in WW2. It entirely possible that International Law and Traditions are being observed in the case of Iraq.

With the exception being the US is not acting acording to the intended wishes of the Security council. Which is essentially "frowned upon"

As for as the "WAR" .. the US is not legally at war by our own definition. In fact the US has not declared war since 1942. The Activity in Iraq is a Congressional Authorized Military Action.

Whether the "war" in Iraq is immoral or unjust is a different issue entirely. There are legitamate cases it wasnt. Even had Iraq had WMD's it was a sticky subject if that is enough reason to justify a war with them. Pakastan has WMD's , for example.

Reguarding the fact Saddam is a dictator and needed removed , well usually the US doesnt go out of the way to overthrow brutal dictatorships and regimes ... there are a dozen examples at least of brutal regimes the US hasnt overthrown I can think of.

The sad fact of the matter is , it doesnt matter at this point. Since if the US leaves now without some provision to prevent Iraq from becoming an fundamentalist aggressive state - it will be far too dangerous. Thats really why even those running against Bush didnt run on an anti war platform.

Many feel the best solution now is to get the International Community back involved. This might be a good idea. It could also help the US get less involved, which may be very much needed.

Grrr...

BTW C3PO is a gay analogue.

.

Yes it was.

The UN Charter forbids armed conflict except when a country is under attack, and even in that case, the UN Security Council has authority as soon as it is able to take up the matter. The UN Charter is a treaty which became the law in the US after being ratified by the US Senate in 1945.

Something you need to learn: Treaties are laws in the US when they have been ratified by the Senate.

It is something you would already know if you knew about this: The US Constitution.

The rest of your speculation, which you base on that premise, is moot.

As to what now, a neutral party needs to negotiate a truce between the waring parties, get the US out of Iraq, then work toward re-establishing civil authority.

Above all the US just needs to leave as they are a combatant and adversary to pretty much all of Iraq.

In point of fact I did over simplify.
Yes A ratified treaty is part of the supreme law of the land. The UN charter does offer a prohibition on armed confclit instead of the us of force.

My point (though perhaps not clearly stated) that all of international law operates as a consensual regulatory scheme, and despite the language of any treaty countries can, and infact do, place thier national interest ahead of treaty obligations. The only remedy is for other countries to sue in international court. All is fine and dandy assuming the offending country is willing to accept the jusdgement of the international tribunal.

The real politik of the situation is that when a country's national interest runs cross-ways to a countries national interest, the treaties tend to fall by the wayside.

Now for a country like the US, it behooves us, as the self proclaimed guardians of law, to comply with the letter of international law. In general the US does comply with international law publicly ( I am sure if one were to review various black ops and covert missions conducted by special teams in US service, the number of international law violations would go way up-but none of us will know). So in short, the US does what it wants, and hopefully this complies with international law. This is the realpolitik.

Now turning to why the war in Iraq is not illegal we look to the interpretation of UN resolution 1441. A whole bunch of international Law Scholars interpret the US unilateral action as being in violation of this resolution. Of course these scholars are otherwise opposed to the war, as any rational person would be opposed to any war, but the language is not that clear. In law, uncertain language is wiggle room. So far the legal language of UN re 1441 has not been tested by an international tribunal, so what we have, in essence is a bunch of lawyers with opinions. If the war in Iraq is so clearly in violation of international law, then why has the US not been taken to International Court? (If anyone has any information that this HAS been done, please provide the details-I confess I don not know and I am relying of brief research on the web for this conclusion).

The UN Charter, so vauted in previous posts has its own wiggle room. The use of force is authorized in self defense. If a threat is imminent, then a pre-emptive strike is justified. President bush took advatange of this wiggle room in the UN Charter, to invade Iraq.
I know much has been made of the US failure to find WMD's, but then realistically, I would assume all such weapons were removed or detroyed during the hubub prior to the invasion. The truth is there is no proof either way about WMD's. Thus is was a Presidential judgement call, one he is permitted to make under both US constitutional law and under the UN charter, as ratified by congress.

My guess is that if an action in international court were brought on behalf of the Iraqis agaisnt the US, it would fail. As I tell my clients: the terms guilty and illegal are highly technical terms that can only be used with any certainty by Judges and Juries.

Which returs us to my original point: The essential debate about the Iraqi war is not about the legality of the war under International Law, but the policy decision underlying it. The question is was Bush right or wrong in asserting that the US interest in National Security justified a decision to conduct a pre-emptive strike on Iraq?

I do not think so.

In the US we have the power to remove a person from office by way of election. Bush was re-elected, and so I can only assume that most of my countrymen have no problem with Mr. Bush's decision to conduct military operations in Iraq.

But really the Thrust of this thread was about a volunteer soldier.

I have not looked into whether or not i am wrong on the point you make - However , actual legal scholars dont necesarily agree with your assertions.

Thus i consider you assertion to total dismiss me becuase I dont know about about the US Constitution basically an arguement to belittle me. I may be wrong about a particular case.

As Jake has said , and Logic dictates not everyone must interpret all these things as you do. As the US covered its bases on at least apremiss.

Disagree with me on my take - i made it clear it was my take. Dont tell me I dont know anything. Its impolite, and not a proper way to discuss issues.

"Colette I think you are wrong in your interpretation , becuase the UN charter is a treaty that prevents wars like this" k fine . thats reasonsble.

(not sure if true yet or not ill look into that as it is curious)

"Colette , you have no idea what your are talking about so your points are all moot" is dismissive, and frankly insulting.

Especially since if youd read my post , SOME of my points were seperate from International law. Those are all moot , also , I suppose.

All right Ive looked into it.

Of course the UN charter is a treaty - I didnt make it to sound like it wasnt.

Whether it prevents members from declaring war --

the answer sounds like its no .. even in the case of nations under Securtiy Council punishment.

Basically on one side of the debate is that Under Articles 41 and 42 the US is acting becuase peaceful means to force Iraq to comply were not sucessful. Supportors site that it is in the US's discretion to do so.

Opponents disagree that this point was reached.

So - sounds like this is not as black and white as some posters would suggest. And again ill have to agree with Jake.


That doesnt mean the war is right.

Just means the UN isnt set up to stop such a war.

- Now this is my interpretation. I may be wrong. But civil people dont dismiss others when they at least attempt to learn things.

Heh, is there any country other than Sweden and Switzerland that HASN'T broken international law or some other wide-sweeping multi-nation law when it serves their interests?

ha ha..

Here's what "International Law" really is: a joke.

Seems that way anyway.

I am sure Switzerland has its ghosts remember the scandal with swiss banks holding funds deposited by Holocaust victims....

As far as sweden, only one word: ABBA