[quote]Sloth wrote:
What the hell is an “illegal” war? The US doesn’t need approval to go to war. [/quote]
Shouldn`t have signed the UN charta then…
[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Note to self: Never go in without un approval. The u.n. makes things legal.
Got it.
Oh, I’ll bet these bleeding heart liberals weren’t so high minded when their hero bill clinton was conducting military operations without u.n. approval.
JeffR
P.S. The u.n. has plenty of Iraqi blood on their hands. See Oil for Food and, oh, hell, 1992-2003 in general.
But this Kosovo thing “worked”, because you had what liberals call “a plan”…
Since having “a plan” seems to be important, I consider it to be “criminally negligent”, “beyond incompetent” and generally “unbearable” to rip a country apart without one…[/quote]
Hey orion!!!
Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but, I believe there was a plan for both the war and the peace.
In hindsight, the latter didn’t live up to expectations. However, to say there wasn’t a plan, is false.
JeffR
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What the hell is an “illegal” war? The US doesn’t need approval to go to war. [/quote]
This is a great point. This also means we should expect that of others whether we view it as unprovoked or not.
In the history of war there has not been one faction that did not think they were not acting with moral authority.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What the hell is an “illegal” war? The US doesn’t need approval to go to war.
This is a great point. This also means we should expect that of others whether we view it as unprovoked or not.
In the history of war there has not been one faction that did not think they were not acting with moral authority.[/quote]
Exactly. Normally aggressors just do they thing. Adolf Hitler did not pop on press conferences saying that their aggression was necessary and great. He said we aryans are fucking the best and we pwn you all bitches all around the place, give it up. He was not playing carebear.
Bush? He chooses the pussy way. We had war, we had lies to public opinion, we had death, we have poor democratic effects. The real glory lies within the oil fields.
He couldn’t just say
“We achieved what we wanted, we now have prolonged our energetical safety and kept our economical supremacy with our patented dollar-all-around policy and used our illusionary marketing skills on Iraqi people by selling them our McDemocracy sandwich.”
But mr. President keeps it real.
“Everything is great, we had to go there, just wait, lemme find another reason we went there apart from that we thought this 3rd world shit had some weapons we are afraid of. Wait, we ain’t afraid of shit because we’re the world’s first power. Ok, just keep on liking me because I explained everything very well to you. I have some sanctions giving day tomorrow so If you just please shut the fuck up I won’t let the dogs out. Thanx for coming, yours faithfully, W. Bush”
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What the hell is an “illegal” war? The US doesn’t need approval to go to war.
Shouldn`t have signed the UN charta then…[/quote]
And where in that charter does it say the US no longer has it’s own war powers?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What the hell is an “illegal” war? The US doesn’t need approval to go to war.
This is a great point. This also means we should expect that of others whether we view it as unprovoked or not.
In the history of war there has not been one faction that did not think they were not acting with moral authority.[/quote]
I don’t expect anyone to recognize “illegal” or “legal” wars. I don’t even care about “terrorists.” I just care that there is an enemy that would kill me or my family. I don’t need the labels.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What the hell is an “illegal” war? The US doesn’t need approval to go to war.
Shouldn`t have signed the UN charta then…
And where in that charter does it say the US no longer has it’s own war powers?[/quote]
Na, I`m tired of posting this:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Article 2/4
Article 51
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What the hell is an “illegal” war? The US doesn’t need approval to go to war.
Shouldn`t have signed the UN charta then…[/quote]
I agree completely. How does the US benefit from the UN? If someone could answer that for me that would be great.
IMHO, the US needs to pull out of the UN immediately. The UN is a laughable, impotent orginazation that does not serve the best interests of the US.
[quote]orion wrote:
Na, I`m tired of posting this:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Article 2/4
Article 51[/quote]
So, if it is ‘illegal’, then there must be some legal proceedings claiming violation of the law?
A Resolution with consequences?
A judge? A jury? A penalty? Legal consequences?
Could you direct me to those? Because those would also be useful in getting similar indictments so we can sue China and everyn Western nation involved in the illegal war in Bosnia-Kosovo.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What the hell is an “illegal” war? The US doesn’t need approval to go to war.
Shouldn`t have signed the UN charta then…
And where in that charter does it say the US no longer has it’s own war powers?
Na, I`m tired of posting this:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Article 2/4
Article 51
[/quote]
Ok…Where in all that are you reading that the US has lost it’s constitutionally mandated war powers? Would you mind quoting the relevant text?
[quote]SoapDrop wrote:
40yarddash wrote:
Okay a lot more of those 400000 Iraqis were killed by their own sectarian violence than U.S. troops.
If USA wouldn’t mention human rights issues when other countries for example Russia break them, I would agree. But USA is the first one to promote them and the very first one to break them hard as hell. Even possibility of civil deaths should stop them from attacking. It doesn’t and it won’t.
[/quote]
Stupid is and stupid thinks.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What the hell is an “illegal” war? The US doesn’t need approval to go to war.
Shouldn`t have signed the UN charta then…
And where in that charter does it say the US no longer has it’s own war powers?
Na, I`m tired of posting this:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Article 2/4
Article 51
Ok…Where in all that are you reading that the US has lost it’s constitutionally mandated war powers? Would you mind quoting the relevant text?
[/quote]
To sum it up for you:
Nobody is supposed to start any war unless the UN says so or you are attacked.
Now, while the US congress still can declare a war, hell you could even bomb countries without calling it anything, you have signed an international treaty not to do so…
Was that good, bad, or orange with green stripes? I dunno…
To American conservatives have a point by attacking the UN?
Yes, pretty much the same point they have against their federal government which harms them much more…
So the classic American conservative seems to oppose the UN because it opposes the US federal government when said US government starts to really abuse power.
How you pull that off intellectually, I honestly have no idea…
Hey, be glad if someone has political pull with your government, because frankly y`all have lost it long ago…
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What the hell is an “illegal” war? The US doesn’t need approval to go to war.
Shouldn`t have signed the UN charta then…
And where in that charter does it say the US no longer has it’s own war powers?
Na, I`m tired of posting this:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Article 2/4
Article 51
Ok…Where in all that are you reading that the US has lost it’s constitutionally mandated war powers? Would you mind quoting the relevant text?
To sum it up for you:
Nobody is supposed to start any war unless the UN says so or you are attacked.
Now, while the US congress still can declare a war, hell you could even bomb countries without calling it anything, you have signed an international treaty not to do so…
Was that good, bad, or orange with green stripes? I dunno…
To American conservatives have a point by attacking the UN?
Yes, pretty much the same point they have against their federal government which harms them much more…
So the classic American conservative seems to oppose the UN because it opposes the US federal government when said US government starts to really abuse power.
How you pull that off intellectually, I honestly have no idea…
Hey, be glad if someone has political pull with your government, because frankly y`all have lost it long ago…
[/quote]
Nope. Still not seeing it. Exactly where does it specifically mandate that a UN member MUST have permission to use it’s own war powers. I see guidelines for members to take conflicts up through the security council. But, I see nothing legally binding any UN member to surrender war powers solely to the UN.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Nope. Still not seeing it. Exactly where does it specifically mandate that a UN member MUST have permission to use it’s own war powers. I see guidelines for members to take conflicts up through the security council. But, I see nothing legally binding any UN member to surrender war powers solely to the UN. [/quote]
I do know what you mean, but I have no idea how to transfer my German legal lingo into English…
Usually it is seen as a given that those articles are enough especially considering the pre-amble to the UN charta stating that he UN was founded with the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of preventing wars.
If you read those two paragraphs in that light and it still does not spell “do not start an offensive war” for you I do not know how to help yu.
[quote]PtrDR wrote:
SoapDrop wrote:
40yarddash wrote:
Okay a lot more of those 400000 Iraqis were killed by their own sectarian violence than U.S. troops.
If USA wouldn’t mention human rights issues when other countries for example Russia break them, I would agree. But USA is the first one to promote them and the very first one to break them hard as hell. Even possibility of civil deaths should stop them from attacking. It doesn’t and it won’t.
Stupid is and stupid thinks.
[/quote]
What do you think then?
Can anyone give me a good reason for the US to remain a member of the united nations? I’d like someone to tell me how the US benefits from membership in the UN.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Can anyone give me a good reason for the US to remain a member of the united nations? I’d like someone to tell me how the US benefits from membership in the UN.[/quote]
What do you mean by the US?
The federal government?
The industrial-military complex?
The sum of all states?
The people of the US?
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Nope. Still not seeing it. Exactly where does it specifically mandate that a UN member MUST have permission to use it’s own war powers. I see guidelines for members to take conflicts up through the security council. But, I see nothing legally binding any UN member to surrender war powers solely to the UN.
I do know what you mean, but I have no idea how to transfer my German legal lingo into English…
Usually it is seen as a given that those articles are enough especially considering the pre-amble to the UN charta stating that he UN was founded with the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of preventing wars.
If you read those two paragraphs in that light and it still does not spell “do not start an offensive war” for you I do not know how to help yu.[/quote]
You attempted to point out how the UN charter makes it illegal for a member nation to use it’s OWN given war powers. You’ve yet to demonstrate how the UN charter makes this ILLEGAL.
[quote]orion wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Can anyone give me a good reason for the US to remain a member of the united nations? I’d like someone to tell me how the US benefits from membership in the UN.
What do you mean by the US?
The federal government?
The industrial-military complex?
The sum of all states?
The people of the US?
[/quote]
Care to expound on this rather ambiguous post?
I was hoping for a response with reasoning for the benefits to the United States being a member of the united nations. As of right now, I don’t see the benefit.
Why shouldn’t the US pull out ASAP?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Nope. Still not seeing it. Exactly where does it specifically mandate that a UN member MUST have permission to use it’s own war powers. I see guidelines for members to take conflicts up through the security council. But, I see nothing legally binding any UN member to surrender war powers solely to the UN.
I do know what you mean, but I have no idea how to transfer my German legal lingo into English…
Usually it is seen as a given that those articles are enough especially considering the pre-amble to the UN charta stating that he UN was founded with the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of preventing wars.
If you read those two paragraphs in that light and it still does not spell “do not start an offensive war” for you I do not know how to help yu.
You attempted to point out how the UN charter makes it illegal for a member nation to use it’s OWN given war powers. You’ve yet to demonstrate how the UN charter makes this ILLEGAL.[/quote]
As you can see in the UN charta there is a whole process to deal with inter-state poblems.
The US are supposed to follow that procedure.
If you do not and start a war instead, you have violated the treaty, which is international law, because, basically, pacta sunt servanda.
If the law tells you to turn left and you turn right, what you are doing is illegal.
You could also argue with me why you are not allowed to dump your toxic waste into a river just because the law might only positively state how to dispose of it but that is just being willfully simpleminded.