Iran... ok, now we have a problem.
Britain's Ministry of Defense confirms to CNN that Iranian naval vessels have seized 15 British Navy personnel on patrol in the Persian Gulf.
Just classic examples of countries arguing over undefined borders.
Their bad...sucks to be them. :)
Their bad...sucks to be them. :)
See, you're just as big an a-hole as me.
No, my inner monologue comes out when I drink.
Ah, the return of the Wise Alkie Sage!
It has to be some sort of misunderstanding. Or maybe the Iranians figured the British were an easy target. I figure worst case scenario, this will be like that situation we had in China early in the Bush administration.
Actually they did this to the Brits a little while back, gave back the people, kept the boats. If only Maggie Thatcher were in charge, then we'd get some action!
She's not really my type, but beauty's only a light switch away.
Or maybe the Iranians figured the British were an easy target.
I'm sure that in some neocon watering holes they're saying that this is because the British started withdrawing from Iraq.
With us juggling Iraq and Afghanistan, I hope the British aren't expecting a lot of help from the US.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
Please don't go to war with Iran.
It would seem that the Brits were conducting a search which A) may have been illegal and B) could very likely have been in an area out of their jusdiction.
If this is the case, the Iranians were simply following international law as it stands. In any case, I'd say it's unlikely to escalate beyond a bit of petty name calling by people who're not likely to affect the outcome of events anyway.
It would seem that the Brits were conducting a search which A) may have been illegal and B) could very likely have been in an area out of their jusdiction.
The Iraq government says their own fisherman said the Brits were out of Iraq waters. However the Brits were captured by what would be the equivalent of US National Guard operated by state churches. It is not certain who to believe.
Apparently these Brits have been taken to Tehran - maybe 1000 miles away. This could be just to have them separated from Islamic Guards, or to prepare for their release to the British Embassy. However, last time this happened, British Iranian relations were not so tense and cold. It may take a month to resolve this minor and, quite frankly, still only trivial situation.
With us juggling Iraq and Afghanistan, I hope the British aren't expecting a lot of help from the US.
Rich, the US is not the only country to have troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure you have the majority, but you *are* the world's greatest military power. Bush could not have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq without British support, so you guys do owe them support, and recognition. Blair is on the way out, so this is why British troops are being reduced - note: not withdrawn. You can hate Bush all you like, but please remember that British troops have died supporting their country's ally, the USA.
The Times "How Britons were conned by Iranian gunboat trick" summarizes how Iran was able to do what they did. Their subtitle for the article is: "The speed and cunning shown by the Revolutionary Guards suggests that their action was premeditated."
It was a carefully planned ambush:
The speed and cunning shown by the Revolutionary Guards has raised suspicions that their action was premeditated. A senior military officer described it as “deliberate”.
It took only three minutes for the Iranians, moving at 40 knots, to move from their legitimate positions monitoring shipping in their waters to come alongside the British last Friday morning.
The sailors and marines from HMS Cornwall were in the Gulf, working under a United Nations mandate to protect Iraq from smuggling and threats to the oil industry, when an Indian-flagged vessel came under suspicion.
It was in shallow waters and the Cornwall was unable to go alongside without grounding. A boarding party jumped into two ribbed inflatable boats, or RIBs, and set out to investigate.
A helicopter hovered to observe the boarding but, after confirming that the Indian vessel was peaceful and friendly, returned to the ship. The Cornwall stayed in contact with the two launch boats via a communications link providing a GPS satellite position.
After the successful boarding of the innocent Indian vessel, the Britons began returning to their RIBs. At that moment one Iranian patrol vessel came alongside, adopting a friendly posture. As a second Iranian vessel arrived, the Revolutionary Guards turned aggressive.
The story goes on. Iran gave a set of coordinates for where the incident took place. Brits mapped it and pointed out that it was in Iraqi waters.
Iran then said "oh never mind, that first set was a mistake, here are the REAL coordinates," and sent a second set of coordinates which was in Iranian waters.
But by then the Brits had flown over the still-stationary Indian vessel, with a GPS unit; they released a picture of the result to show where it took place, in clearly Iraqi territory.
The Times "How Britons were conned by Iranian gunboat trick" summarizes how Iran was able to do what they did. Their subtitle for the article is: "The speed and cunning shown by the Revolutionary Guards suggests that their action was premeditated."
It was a carefully planned ambush:...
Same thing discussed from a strategic perspective in:
Options limited in Iran stand-off
It's not a major problem when observing from a strategic objective. But it could become major and problematic as defined
here. Deja vue a silly spy plane incident when some wanted a boogey man and therefore war with China.
Does anyone here really think that the US is going to enter a war with Iran over 6 British sailors? I am a strong supporter of US-UK ties on many levels. But does anyone really think this is some kind of plan by Blair and Bush to start a war with Iran????
I don't know what to think when it comes to Bush anymore.
Um, there weren't even six British sailors captured by Saddam. Just an old grudge.
And there's an even older grudge against Iran. Ironically, the one that caused us to prop up Saddam in the first place.
Does anyone here really think that the US is going to enter a war with Iran over 6 British sailors? I am a strong supporter of US-UK ties on many levels. But does anyone really think this is some kind of plan by Blair and Bush to start a war with Iran????
Well the US didn't mind getting inolved in a dispute over a couple of border guards in Lebanon. What's the difference? Who is a more important ally is probably more the question.
I heard that this could be about a prisoner exchange too. I forget if it was from here or somewhere else...
I heard that this could be about a prisoner exchange too. I forget if it was from here or somewhere else...
Yea, we have captured and detained a number of Iranian's suspected of supplying the insurgency with weapons and training, just like they have been doing in Lebanon.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9633Rich, the US is not the only country to have troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure you have the majority, but you *are* the world's greatest military power. Bush could not have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq without British support, so you guys do owe them support, and recognition. Blair is on the way out, so this is why British troops are being reduced - note: not withdrawn. You can hate Bush all you like, but please remember that British troops have died supporting their country's ally, the USA.
Thanks. I know we all bitch, both American and British dwellars, about the war; but we have lost a number of young soldiers in Iraq fighting that war, several of them from my own area. I am totally aganst the war in Iraq and have been from the start, but not because I don't want british soldiers to die and don't mind American soldiers dying. Mistake though I firmly believe it was to invade Iraq, and no matter how fervently I believe the American President persuaded/led my own country into an illegal, or at the very least ill-advised, war, the fact remained we stood with America. From the first reports of the 9/11 attacks right through to the decimation of Baghdad and beyond. You dragged us into this, and because we see where it is going and because our politicians can no longer sell us a broken and tarnished vision and start to reduce our involvement, you say fuckem?
My God, this 'special relationship', shoulder-to-shoulder friendship with America was worth mortgaging what little goodwill we had left with the rest of the world eh?
My God, this 'special relationship', shoulder-to-shoulder friendship with America was worth mortgaging what little goodwill we had left with the rest of the world eh?
Well anytime you all would like to just start to go it alone without US support I am all for it. How about we break realations and see where that gets both our countries?
Well the US didn't mind getting inolved in a dispute over a couple of border guards in Lebanon. What's the difference? Who is a more important ally is probably more the question.
Is this one of those, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem", accusations?
Nope, it was a response to Mercenary's post. :)
Well anytime you all would like to just start to go it alone without US support I am all for it. How about we break realations and see where that gets both our countries?
Notice classic symptoms of - the underlying principles behind - 'big dic' thinking. "Screw you. You cannot live without us."
Do we call it selfishness, egotism, tactlessness, rudness, impudence, or simple disrespect? Probably all. All is probably necessary to know things without first learning facts. To know things only because TheMercenary has a political agenda that justifies all and that makes him so predictable.
What has TheMercenary just posted to DanaC? In simplest terms: "fuck you - I am an American".
Notice classic symptoms of - the underlying principles behind - 'big dic' thinking. "Screw you. You cannot live without us."
Do we call it selfishness, egotism, tactlessness, rudness, impudence, or simple disrespect? Probably all. All is probably necessary to know things without first learning facts. To know things only because TheMercenary has a political agenda that justifies all and that makes him so predictable.
What has TheMercenary just posted to DanaC? In simplest terms: "fuck you - I am an American".
Still thinking about those "Big Dicks", but you can't answer a simple question about your own experiences. Ok. Carry on...:rolleyes: :fumette:
Well anytime you all would like to just start to go it alone without US support I am all for it. How about we break realations and see where that gets both our countries?
It would damage both of us. That's hardly the point. Are you suggesting that friendship is something that can only ever be on your terms? If so then it is not friendship. It may be useful, but lets not dignify it with a term of endearment which one side clearly does not feel. What you have just written is similar in nature to a form of blackmail, which suggests that we should just put up, or shut up, regardless of how your country treats us, because we'd be worse off without you. Again, that's not friendship.
Does anyone here really think that the US is going to enter a war with Iran over 6 British sailors? I am a strong supporter of US-UK ties on many levels. But does anyone really think this is some kind of plan by Blair and Bush to start a war with Iran????
It seems more like an Iranian plan to put one over on Britain, and indirectly the US. Ahmadinejad gets to act like a big shot and Iran gets to act as the innocent party (I don't know whether they are or not, but at this point I'll take the word of our government over that of the Iranians). On a brighter note, they're being released which is good. Ahmadinejad said it was "a gift to the British people", which was nice of him.:rolleyes:
It would damage both of us. That's hardly the point. Are you suggesting that friendship is something that can only ever be on your terms? If so then it is not friendship. It may be useful, but lets not dignify it with a term of endearment which one side clearly does not feel. What you have just written is similar in nature to a form of blackmail, which suggests that we should just put up, or shut up, regardless of how your country treats us, because we'd be worse off without you. Again, that's not friendship.
Ah, I agree, but this is what you said:
You dragged us into this, and because we see where it is going and because our politicians can no longer sell us a broken and tarnished vision and start to reduce our involvement, you say fuckem?
We didn't "drag you" into anything. And when you start ranting about "illegal war" you sound like any other lefty here in the US, something I don't buy, but it sure attempts to deflect any responsibility off those who love to parrot it. Look I have the greatest respect, understanding, and admiration for the UK. But don't act like someway you and your country were dragged into anything. Hell, talk about going it alone, considering the token contributions most of the other countries have given, not the UK, we have been pretty much putting our boys through the grinder at a rate that far exceeds that of any other country. I for one understand and appreciate the contributions you all have made. The sooner we all get out the better. Let us not forget that these are problems made for the people by elected governments, not by the populace in general.
Did the hostages say anything about being made to say that they were in Iranian waters?
Did the hostages say anything about being made to say that they were in Iranian waters?
I don't think they are actually on home land yet.
Yea, we have captured and detained a number of Iranian's suspected of supplying the insurgency with weapons and training, just like they have been doing in Lebanon.
And of course, the other side is completely innnocent of that.
Well anytime you all would like to just start to go it alone without US support I am all for it. How about we break realations and see where that gets both our countries?
So goes the other way. Iraq painfully shows that the US cannot do it alone as well and clearly indicates the downfall of Pax Americana.
The sooner we all get out the better. Let us not forget that these are problems made for the people by elected governments, not by the populace in general.
Fair comment.
The "fuckem" comment related to this
With us juggling Iraq and Afghanistan, I hope the British aren't expecting a lot of help from the US.
Merc, I do believe the war was illegal. I think my country was absolutely hands down right to stand next to yours after 9/11, and to support your efforts in Afghanistan where the perpetrators of that atrocity were hiding. I think we were completely wrong to go with America into Iraq, where there was no threat to either of our nations and where nobody who could possibly be considered culpable of 9/11 was hiding. It was an illegal and ill-advised war, and in following America into it we have damaged our own international reputation as much as America has damaged hers. I believe it was a mistake for America to invade Iraq. I believe that Britain has compounded her friend's mistake by jumping into it with her instead of standing to one side and saying, well if you really feel you need to then go ahead, but in this instance we will not be with you.
President Bush showed very clearly how little his administration valued the British involvement when he point blank refused any amelioration of his plan or any extended time for weapons inspections despite Blair's urging. Several times during that process Blair was shown to simply be ignored and have absolutely no diplomatic weight with Bush whatsoever. In terms of our ability to influence Bush and his administration, we might as well be a little-known banana republic somewhere. Blair was totally humiliated in his own country and in Europe, by Bush's attitude to him.
Also, Yugoslavia had nothing to do with 9/11, and Milosevic was merely a misunderstood dictator who had to be brutal to his people in order to keep the country together.
"Also, Yugoslavia had nothing to do with 9/11, and Milosevic was merely a misunderstood dictator who had to be brutal to his people in order to keep the country together."
And that relates to Iraq how?
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and Hussein was merely a misunderstood dictator who had to be brutal to his people in order to keep the country together.
I believe it was a mistake for America to invade Iraq.
This we agree on. I wish you or your country no ill will. In fact, as stated in a previous post on another thread, if called upon by my country to preserve your republic, I would gladly sacrifice myself to do so. We are joined through history. This we must agree on...
I liked Blair's comment about having confidence in the intelligence of the people to recognize this as an act of theater. Great response.
But what about the rest of the audience? The ones watching around the world, especially 2nd and 3rd world?
Is Robin Hood a good guy or bad guy? The peasants say good, the aristocracy says bad....same kind of theater with the same results.
Exactly why we're losing the war in Iraq no matter what the actual outcome.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and Hussein was merely a misunderstood dictator who had to be brutal to his people in order to keep the country together.
The two do not equate. Nobody tried to sell the action in Yugoslavia as a response to the threat they posed, or their role in 9/11. The Bush administration did try to sell action in Iraq as a response to the threat they supposedly posed and their supposed role in 9/11.
Also both Milosevic and Hussein were total unmitigated bastards, who oppressed their people and made the lives of those who disagreed with them difficult or entirely untenable. That's not the point. If international law recognised dictatorship as a valid reason for invading and occupying a country we would have far more wars than we currently do. If the invasion had happened directly after Kuwait, it could have been justified imo.....if it had happened directly after the gassing of the Kurds it could have been justified (soon as someone uses the genocide word, international law allows for action). If the assistance which had been offered to the opposition in Iraq had actually been forthcoming when they attempted to overthrow their dictator, that would have been entirely justified, as that would have been assisting the people in their own self-determination.
The invasion of Iraq was not in any of these circumstances, the invasion of Iraq was an opportunist move by a president and administration who deemed it useful to America to do so.
TWe are joined through history. This we must agree on...
Agreed. I would have it no other way. *smiles*
When I rail against decisions by the American administration, that is as far as it goes. I have never ceased to feel culturally and historically linked to America as a country and Americans as a People. I doubt there's many people in the UK that don't feel that bond of kinship. In a way that's what makes it so frustrating when the Administration acts with such disdain towards us.
The two do not equate. Nobody tried to sell the action in Yugoslavia as a response to the threat they posed, or their role in 9/11. The Bush administration did try to sell action in Iraq as a response to the threat they supposedly posed and their supposed role in 9/11.
Yugoslavia wasn't a threat, but it's OK since it wasn't SOLD as a threat.
Iraq was more of a threat than Yugoslavia, by anyone's measure, but it's NOT OK since it was sold as a threat.
Not sure I follow.
If international law recognised dictatorship as a valid reason for invading and occupying a country we would have far more wars than we currently do.
Thus, Yugoslavia was illegal and unjustified.
If the invasion had happened directly after Kuwait, it could have been justified imo.....if it had happened directly after the gassing of the Kurds it could have been justified (soon as someone uses the genocide word, international law allows for action). If the assistance which had been offered to the opposition in Iraq had actually been forthcoming when they attempted to overthrow their dictator, that would have been entirely justified, as that would have been assisting the people in their own self-determination.
What does "international law" say about a
statute of limitations on gassing people? How much time has to pass before they got away with it?
Does bin Laden face a similar deadline? If a decade passes and he hasn't been caught, does he get away too?
A statute of limitations is about punishment. Was the entire Iraq war a punishment for Saddam? Well, um, yay, I guess. He's one of the many dead. We win.
Yugoslavia wasn't about punishment, it was about stopping something currently in progress.
Well put HM.
Thus, Yugoslavia was illegal and unjustified.
The action against Yugoslavia was not taken because Milosevic was a dictator. It was taken in order to stop ethnic cleansing and prevent what may have been edging into genocide.
The mere fact that a country is ruled by a dictator, however unpleasant that might make life in that country, is not alone justification for invasion.
Iraq was more of a threat than Yugoslavia, by anyone's measure, but it's NOT OK since it was sold as a threat.
More of a threat to whom? To America? Oh come on, who are
you kidding?.....to the UK? I really don't think so. To its neighbours? Well maybe, but if we invade every country that is a threat to its neighbours, then we'd better get a fucking big task force over to some of the African countries. Iraq was not a threat to us, it was merely sold as a threat to us in order to justifiy military action. Yugoslavia was not a threat to us, but nor did anybody try to tell us otherwise.
A statute of limitations is about justice and prosecution. A sentence is about punishment.
You have answered my question, in a roundabout way. If they gas people, and then STOP, once they stop it's no longer "currently in progress", and at that point it's against "international law" to invade or otherwise violate their "sovereignty".
You know that we don't invade every contry that is doing something bad, or has ever done something bad.
You have answered my question, in a roundabout way. If they gas people, and then STOP, once they stop it's no longer "currently in progress", and at that point it's against "international law" to invade or otherwise violate their "sovereignty".
Why did we not attempt to do something about Iraq when they were engaging in ethnic cleansing? Why did we not attempt to do something about Iraq when the opposition within the country tried to overthrow their dictator on the understanding that we would all help?
It's not acceptable to just invade a country and then point to what the dictator did a decade earlier and say "see, that's why".
... It's not acceptable to just invade a country and then point to what the dictator did a decade earlier and say "see, that's why".
But it does set the precedent that we can invade any country we want, if they have ever done anything bad, ever.
More of a threat to whom? To America? Oh come on, who are you kidding?.....to the UK?
Yes and yes, Iraq was more of a threat than Yugoslavia, both to the US and the UK.
An existential threat, maybe not. But as a bad actor? Sure.
Iraq was a terrible threat to "international law", as a system of sanctions devolved into Iraqi poverty, and a UN scandal involving billions upon billions of dollars in oil contracts scuttled any interest in cutting Gordian's knot.
And Iraq was indeed a heavy sponsor of terrorism; see Abu Nidal organization, payments to suicide bombers, and the sorta-not-disputed
Salman Pak for just three examples.
You know that we don't invade every country that is "a terrible threat to international law" or "a heavy sponsor of terrorism."
It's not acceptable to just invade a country and then point to what the dictator did a decade earlier and say "see, that's why".
We have established your position: if they gas people, and then STOP, once they stop it's no longer "currently in progress", and at that point it's against "international law" to invade or otherwise violate their "sovereignty".
Why did we not attempt to do something about Iraq when they were engaging in ethnic cleansing? Why did we not attempt to do something about Iraq when the opposition within the country tried to overthrow their dictator on the understanding that we would all help?
Can you think of an event between those difficult and terrible situations, and 2003, that might have changed the global response to such things?
Think hard.
I guess I need to be clear: I'm not saying the war was a good idea. I'm saying it was more complex than you nutters want to write off.
I don't know whether you've been clear or not; I'm just tail-posting. But, for kicks, define: nutters.
I tend to use terms from the
British-American dictionary when talking to Brits
I guess I need to be clear: I'm not saying the war was a good idea. I'm saying it was more complex than you nutters want to write off.
You're also pointing out that the justifications for the Balkan deal were similar and the left needs to quit pretending to be antiwar. Resisting the urge to bomb our way to sunshine and happiness is beyond our present political system.
That's true; and it's not unfair either, to point out that Serbia is not exactly sunshine and happiness yet; Kosovo is still a UN protectorate; and Milosevic died of natural causes, after "international law" couldn't figure out if he was guilty after five years of trial.
and if someone were concerned with European civilization they might entertain some doubts about supporting a Moslem enclave...
You're also pointing out that the justifications for the Balkan deal were similar and the left needs to quit pretending to be antiwar.
I am not 'antiwar', I am anti- the Iraq war. Are you suggesting that anyone who objects to one war whilst supporting another is a hypocrite? Surely that depends upon the grounds for their objection. Right now, I am all for the UN sending a task force into Darfur. If that doesn't work I'm all for a coalition marching in there and enforcing a solution. Why? because right now, whilst we sit here Genocide is being perpetrated. I'd have been all for us going in to Rwanda. Why? because genocide was being committed.
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.
Why did we not attempt to do something about Iraq when they were engaging in ethnic cleansing? Why did we not attempt to do something about Iraq when the opposition within the country tried to overthrow their dictator on the understanding that we would all help?
Can you think of an event between those difficult and terrible situations, and 2003, that might have changed the global response to such things?
Think hard.
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. The bombing of Belgrade was in that period. It was not desirable for America to go to war with Iraq at the time of the Halabja attacks. It was desirable for America to go to war with iraq in 2003. That is the only consideration that your administration has made. 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'. It pure opportunism. It was desirable for that administration at that particular time to take that action and 9/11 gave it a set of circumstances which could be sufficiently manipulated in order to carry out that desire.
From wikipedia (though with a warning of possible bias):
An investigation into responsibility for the Halabja massacre, by Dr Jean Pascal Zanders, Project Leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) concluded that Iraq was the culprit, and not Iran. Some debate existed, however, over the question of whether Iraq was really the responsible party. The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame.[citation needed]
A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time concluded, apparently by determining the chemicals used by looking at images of the victims, that it was in fact Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990s. The CIA's senior political analyst for the Iran-Iraq war, Stephen C. Pelletiere, co-authored an unclassified analysis of the war [2] which contained a brief summary of the DIA study's key points. The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of WMD before the 2003 invasion. [3]
And as for this
and if someone were concerned with European civilization they might entertain some doubts about supporting a Moslem enclave...
What the fuck is that all about? Those people were Europeans. the fact that they were Moslem did not stop them being Europeans. Nor did it stop them being the victims of ethnic cleansing. They had every right to expect the rest of Europe to give a shit. Do you consider American moslems your enemy?
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.
Wait, you can't think Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror unless you think "9/11 began and ended with bin Laden" ???
That's bizarrely over-specific.
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.
I'm off the hook on Federal law!
From Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute:
international law: an overview
International law consists of rules and principles which govern the relations and dealings of nations with each other. International Law, which is in most other countries referred to as Public International Law, concerns itself only with questions of rights between several nations or nations and the citizens or subjects of other nations. In contrast, Private International Law deals with controversies between private persons, natural or juridical, arising out of situations having significant relationship to more than one nation. In recent years the line between public and private international law have became increasingly uncertain. Issues of private international law may also implicate issues of public international law, and many matters of private international law nave substantial significance for the international community of nations.
International Law includes the basic, classic concepts of law in national legal systems -- status, property, obligation, and tort (or delict). It also includes substantive law, procedure, process and remedies. International Law is rooted in acceptance by the nation states which constitute the system. Customary law and conventional law are primary sources of international law. Customary international law results when states follow certain practices generally and consistently out of a sense of legal obligation. Recently the customary law was codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH538.txt). Conventional international law derives from international agreements and may take any form that the contracting parties agree upon. Agreements may be made in respect to any matter except to the extent that the agreement conflicts with the rules of international law incorporating basic standards of international conduct or the obligations of a member state under the Charter of the United Nations (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-cont.htm). International agreements create law for the parties of the agreement. They may also lead to the creation of customary international law when they are intended for adherence generally and are in fact widely accepted. Customary law and law made by by international agreement have equal authority as international law. Parties may assign higher priority to one of the sources by agreement. However, some rules of international law are recognized by international community as peremptory, permitting no derogation. Such rules can be changed or modified only by a subsequent peremptory norm of international law.
General principles common to systems of national law is a secondary source of international law. There are situations where neither conventional nor customary international law can be applicable. In this case a general principle may be invoked as a rule of international law because it is a general principle common to the major legal systems of the world and not inappropriate for international claims.
The law of nations is a part of the law of the United States unless there is some statute or treaty to the contrary. International law is a part of the law of the United States only for the application of its principles on questions of international rights and duties. It does not restrict the United States or any other nation from making laws governing its own territory. A State of the United States is not a "state" under international law, since the Constitution does not vest it with a capacity to conduct foreign relations.
and:
The United Nations (http://www.un.org/), the most influential among international organizations, was created on June 26, 1945. The declared purposes of United Nations are to maintain peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems, and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of the nations and attaining their common ends. The Charter of the United Nations has been adhered to by virtually all states. Even the few remaining non-member states have acquiesced in the principles it established. The International Court of Justice (http://www.icj-cij.org/) is established by the UN Charter as its principal judicial organ.
Wait, you can't think Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror unless you think "9/11 began and ended with bin Laden" ???
That's bizarrely over-specific.
That's not what I wrote.
I wasn't quoting what you wrote, I was quoting what you meant.
Dana-Not hypocrisy. The left and right don't agree on the reasons to go to war. Both have their ideologies to support and neither seems to consider likelihood for success, unintended consequence, or the kids that will die as a serious factor for consideration. Both are driven by a fantasy of power not based in reality, valuing intention over outcome. Armies are very good at the killing part the rest is far more difficult. My own preference would be to demobilize and wait for Canada to become a threat.
Fuzzy thinking by Clinton, Bush, and string of Presidents back past Teddy Roosevelt has changed the army from a unit with a clear objective, defending the territorial integrity of the US, to everything from a defender of fruit companies, missionaries, oil men, tyrants, messianic visionaries, to democracies, none having much more than a passing relationship with national defense. All create pretense for building the machinery of war which becomes its own arguement for deployment.
I've recently been involved in an attempt to talk a kid out of joining the army. He is the low-hanging fruit, bored and directionless, the kind of kid that with the best of intentions Democrats would kill in Darfur or the Republicans would kill in Iraq, either way, dead. Another guy pigeon-holed him recently. His own son is being deployed to Iraq again, a silver star recipient whose best friend died right in front of him trying to get up a set of stairs to kill the bad guys. Join the army with either Dems or Reps in charge? That'd be nuts.
From Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute:
...
The International Court of Justice (http://www.icj-cij.org/) is established by the UN Charter as its principal judicial organ.
Getting somewhere. Since you believe that the Iraq activity was illegal, where is the docket on prosecuting this illegal activity?
Hint:
here is its page on Serbia vs UK. Advised to click on "Summary of the judgement", and the reader is encouraged to note at what point they feel the court is an insane joke foisted on the world. Reader is encouraged to note the dates of the events as well as who is charging whom. Reader is encouraged to figure out why the court did not take action in this case.
If/when/because we have we do/done something wrong, by many in here's logic, it is perfectly acceptable for other nations to band together and take over the US.
There may very well be a day when we need a good ass-whipping. We're not there yet, but we seem to be on our way.
There may very well be a day when we need a good ass-whipping. We're not there yet, but we seem to be on our way.
So basically if it comes you are willing to put yourself and your family up front and let them die first?!?!??! Cool. You are a stud. Go for it. Kill yourself and your family first! Awsome. After it all goes down we will let you know how it all turned out.
I'm just tail-posting.
I'm just stalking tail posters today
So basically if it comes you are willing to put yourself and your family up front and let them die first?!?!??! Cool. You are a stud. Go for it. Kill yourself and your family first! Awsome. After it all goes down we will let you know how it all turned out.
And we'll find you hiding in the/with the bushes Merc?
And we'll find you hiding in the/with the bushes Merc?
I doubt it, but you may have some crosshairs on your forehead.
Well fortunately I don't live in the US, so when your country is invaded maybe it'll be us comming to your rescue. Who knows. Maybe it'll be us invading you. :) It could be worse.
And we'll find you hiding in the/with the bushes Merc?
Good line!
When you invade, be sure and bring DuckNuts.
Of course. No invasion would be complete with a duck. :)
Of course. No invasion would be complete with a duck.
Well if we don't have ducks, will friends of Cheney do?
Well if we don't have ducks, will friends of Cheney do?
Can they shoot like Cheney?
They must've skipped that story over at CNS "News."
Good line!
When you invade, be sure and bring DuckNuts.
And bring some hotter ladies from the beach. Oh, and a roo or two.
And bring some hotter ladies from the beach
Hotter? Ducknuts not hot enough for ya then?
Hotter? Ducknuts not hot enough for ya then?
I have never seen her, I did not mean to say she was not hot enough.