This is true. The belligerent that can, needn't concern itself with IL, or the UN if it decides that it's "interests" (nebulous as that is) supersede the former, and if it has the military, economic and political will, it can dismiss both.
Greetings, Montecresto. :2wave:
I remember reading a long time ago that someone was discussing this very subject, and they simply asked "would you want a doctor from Bangledesh making the rules about health care for the entire world, including the US, just because someone at the UN gave him the authority to do so?" That scared the **** out of me at the time, and it still does! The "one-world government" people are only interested in power, IMO, and don't give a fig about the billions of people who would be affected by their decisions. We're not perfect, but we're still among the best the world has to offer. Just saying...
And you think the US cares why?
Which means that if we deem it to be in our interest, we'll tell the UN and International law to take a hike because "we're among the best the world has to offer"! That can only be done though if one has the power to do so. We're right back to might makes right, even though, it doesn't!
Well, we only get one vote at the UN, same as the others, but we do provide much of their funding, and money does talk. Does International law over-ride our law? Maybe sometimes on treaties and such, but how is it that terrorist groups can commit the atrocities they are currently doing? They don't respect the law, and they laugh about it. China and Russia seem to be ganging up on us, and they are powerful too. What is the solution, Monte?
Because we believe in rule of law, and a rational debate.
If as an example, disproportionate killing of civilians (say, such as the US Predator Drone Program does) is a violation of international law. Do you think US law should supersede that. And if US law and constitution nullifies international law when they conflict, then why couldn't other nations claim the same. Why couldn't Hussein tell the UN to take a hike, that they're resolve conflicts with Iraqi law? Simply because they hadn't the economic and military strength to oppose those countries which would enforce the resolutions. IOW, international law has to be followed, or it doesn't. The US can deny the authority of the ICC. Who's going force the US in front of that judicial body??
Our national security trumps all laws no matter what. Period
Seriously? The U.S. has a long track record of deposing governments we don't like, funding coups and terrorists, setting up puppet governments etc. Rule of law my ass.
Fine. Just remember that when Russia or China or Iran claim the same.
They always apply. Not have the moral core to abide by your moral convictions is not the same as them not applying. And no, the outcome of a war is not dependent on committing atrocities. We did not have to bomb Dresden to win, we did not have to drop two nukes to win, we did not have to torture to win, it's a false premise that because something happened that we had no choice but to do it. There are choices.
I said WE as in the US. If a country makes a rational argument and acts in a legal manner, we will give them more lattitude than if they say one thing and do another.
Which is entirely dependent upon where the world draws the line_Ok. I'll have to take this up with you somewhere else another time. There's been a thread warning. My position on Iran if it interests you, is that they have only the rights that they can force.
Unfortunately; your world does not exist in the real world_Nukes don't exist in my world, but probably more and more countries will have them.
Which is entirely dependent upon where the world draws the line_
Now we must ask ourselves: Do we want the world to draw that line???
Unfortunately; your world does not exist in the real world_
"As a child, I believed as a child__As an adult, I put away those childish beliefs"
Simply wishing for something has never been a very effective solution Monty!
Who's the world?
I don't need you quoting scripture to me, I don't recognize its authority.
Do you prefer a world with or without nuclear weapons.
As I previously stated; the United States and its Western Allies have never demonstrated a desire for world domination; which is undeniable by their actions and policies after World War I & II_So colonialism and world domination, if done by a group (except for China, N Korea and Russia of course) is okay with you?
If you are indeed referring to the United States; I would imagine their "mandates" would involve the same motivations and policies they always have_Those with the nuclear weapons dictate who can (Israel, Pakistan etc) and who can't (Iran) develop a nuclear weapon. I wonder what next mandate will be coming from nuclear equipped group next?
It doesn't matter what you prefer, it matters what is true.
Which doesn't mean that nukes don't exist in your world. Wishful thinking isn't reality. Not sure how many times I have to keep pointing this out.
Who said there isn't nuclear weapons in the world.
I heard someone make the argument that Obama doesn't believe the US has any rightful role in preventing or hindering Iran from developing and maintaining nuclear weapons. I don't know that that's true, and nobody but the President can answer to what he believes, so I'll ask what you believe. If Iran has the ability, does it have the "right" to nuclear weapons? (By "right", I mean the U.S. and other nations would not be unjustified in trying to prevent it.)
working on the poll
It doesn't matter whether we do or don't think that the Iranians have a right to nuclear weapons. What DOES matter is that THEY - the Iranians - believe they have a right to build their own nuclear weapons. Now with skillful use of diplomacy and deal-making, we can stop it from happening. But if we allow the Neanderthal Right (both here in America and in Israel) to run things, they'll just say "If you make them, we will bomb you"...which means all the more that the Iranians WILL make them.
That's what's so stupid about the Right - they raise hell at the very thought of someone telling them something they don't want to hear, but they pretend that the {Insert Name of Enemy Here} will meekly say, "Okay, you're threatening to bomb us, so we'll do what you are telling us to do." It's as if in the Right's view, any 'diplomacy' that does not include bombers in the air waiting to rain destruction down on the other guy is automatically the modern-day equivalent of Chamberlain's "appeasement".
You said in post #346: "Nukes don't exist in my world"
There you go.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?