[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by DanaC

There is a reason that International law does not allow for military intervention except under certain proscribed circumstances. Just because America believes itself to be above that law and ultimately trustworthy, does not make that law a bad idea imo. You may trust yourselves not to abuse your power and you may have faith in the fact that nobody can beat you in a war. But you are not the only country in the world. If you set aside International law and say that it needn't apply to you, sooner or later that law will be abandoned altogether. In the twentieth century, 160 million people died in wars. The stakes are very, very high.

There is a reason I always put "international law" into quotes, and that reason is that there is no such thing as "international law", in word or in deed.

If there is such a thing, we need you to point out the people who enforce it, since law cannot exist without enforcement.

We need you to point out the ruling bodies and the basis for the law. Is it common law extended, or something else entirely? I have to point out here that, as a free man, I only respect those laws where I have the opportunity to vote for representatives who author it and executives who enforce it.

In fact there are more people who pull stunts and use "international law" as cover for their crimes, than who violate "international law" and then are punished for it.

So in that period you think the world wasn't really interested in getting involved? Approx. 18 years passed since the gassing of the kurds. Do you really think 9/11 made the whole world sit up and notice what was going on around them? I would counter that the world was already very aware and already engaged in attempting to deal with those things.

Yes the UN was busy crafting harshly worded letters during those 18 years. Meanwhile Mugabe visits Paris and Belgium and they roll out the red carpet for him. I can't be more unimpressed!

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'global response' being altered by 9/11, because it had nothing to do with the so-called 'war on terror'.

If you believe that 9/11 began and ended with bin Laden, and had nothing to do with the larger picture of a highly dysfunctional middle east, that makes sense.

I personally do not believe that.