You have not make any new statements regarding the subject but just have ignored my arguments and exactly repeated statements of your previous post.
They all were answered and some of them more than once. It is clear that you cannot be reasoned. I don’t even know if should I repeat or accent for others who visit this tread.
Germany attacked the USSR when Japan has a treaty with Germany where Japan was taking obligations to provide military, economic and political aid to Germany - not excluding but rather including Germany’s military actions in Europe. Since Japan didn’t withdraw from the treaty with Germany when Germany undertook military action against the USSR (within conditions of the treaty beween germany and Japan) its treaty with the USSR lost any legal validity, lost any sense.
If Kyoto comes to your mind as an example of a treaty which has non-sense as its goal and impossibility to comply with it, I can only congratulate you. It seems like you are quite a discoverer of things nobody can think about.
The US - during all time of its confrontation with the Empire of evil never thought about accusing it in breaking the international law by withdrawing from treaty of Tripoli, I mean from treaty with Japan.
I can imagine that now professors of law do it today - I don’t know how widely liberal lunatics are spread in Universities today, but the US has never proposed such a bogus idea on international stage. May be Obama’s administration will push this accusation on Russia, - who knows, all kind of things may be expected, but I still think it will take time before any common sense will be exterminated by your type in the US.
All you have added is desertion to statements “Your logic is that of the dictators in Moscow.’’ such a Russia/USSR apologist’’, - which is pathetic, and again it proves that you are not capable of reasoning.
I am rather the US history apologist as the US have never accused the USSR in what you are accusing.
I am very sympathetic to Russia for a number of reasons, but it does not have anything to do to my attitude to the USSR.
Your spreading the term the USSR on only the Russian Federation when you look at all other former members of the USSR, - like they have nothing to do to the USSR, - proves that you are not only ignorant and unreasonable, but also most likely a pathetic Russophobe. When people who suffer from lack of reason, ignorance and phobia express the named symptoms talking about Russia they make me even more sympathetic to Russia.
Russia rulez. Look into the KGB eyes:
It is a lie, as usual, - I did in http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...n-pm-aso-sakhalin-talks-3.html#post1057902616.
justone said:What does mean to be “ familiar with the concept of custom as a source of international law “ ? What does mean to be aware of customary international law?
The self authorized claim that you are aware of customary international law cannot serve as grounds that you are right when your reasoning is flawed; such a claim is a logical fallacy. You can be a master international lawyer, it does not make any difference. The repeated notion - that I may not be unfamiliar, and you are familiar - you use instead of ever addressing my arguments is childish, to say the least.
You have to look at the intent of the USSR in signing the treaty. It was to prevent them from getting embroiled in a two front war - one that would likely have led to the fall of EUropean Russia. It was successful. The USSR got want they wanted. .
I am refering to RUssia in this case because Russia is the sole successor state of the USSR in the Far East and in international law, Russia is regarded as the successor state to the USSR. .
After dealing with a China apologist for two years, now I have a Russia apologist to deal with. I hope this will be just as much fun.
You have the same as usual – repeated your statements, never addressed my arguments and deserted to pathetic addresses like Russia apologist”.
Let me put in a simpler way, - it is like you would be claiming that the earth is flat, and when I would be refuting your claim and you would ask what degree in geography do I have. You are missing the point.
You have to prove the intent of the USSR as well you have to address and prove the intent of Japan. As well you have to try to avoid verbal fallacies such as ‘’EUropean Russia’’- which were Ukraine, Moldova and the 3 Baltic republics.
The USSR signed the treaty and it never intended to comply with it. Japan signed the treaty with a hope that the USSR would comply with it. The 2 evil States were playing games. Japan just got beaten severely by the USSR ( at the first application of the Soviet concept of blitzkrieg.)
The USSR was preparing to occupy Europe. Japan was preparing to attack Pearl Harbor. The treaty was equally beneficial for the both states. The both states were concentrating on their main goals. It is some explanation of your lies for the visitors. Your lies yet are not addressing the points made.
These are my wordsIt is another verbal fallacy. Russia accepted legal and financial obligations of the USSR, when other Republics of the USSR failed. It does not mean that Russia is the
‘’ successor state to the USSR’’ in its political stance and goals. In its political stance and goals has demonstrated to be a lot more away from the political stance and goals of the USSR than any other Republic of the USSR. It has been demonstrating that it follows reasons, the concept which is totally unfamiliar to you.
This is the only way of the posters like you – you have a lot of time on hand and you don’t care what you type, as long as you keep on typing to have the last word. Your fun is in your sickness./QUOTE]
You have shown NO understanding whatsoever regarding the principle of customary international law.
I have two degrees in political science and have significant coursework and independent study in the field of international law, something you have shown an alarming LACK of understanding about to this point in the discussion.
Have you learned this tact from jfuh when he was young and completly helpless?
Once again, do you know what customary international law is?
*note to mods: we need an icon for "dodge"*
justone said:You cannot lecture me on customary international law or anything else, because you cannot be an expert in customary international law or anything else due to total absence of common sense and basic logic.
justone said:I never had my Qs answered and my points addressed.
Let me put in a simpler way, - it is like you would be claiming that the earth is flat, and when I would be refuting your claim and you would ask what degree in geography do I have. You are missing the point.
justone said:What does mean to be “ familiar with the concept of custom as a source of international law “ ? What does mean to be aware of customary international law?
The self authorized claim that you are aware of customary international law cannot serve as grounds that you are right when your reasoning is flawed; such a claim is a logical fallacy. You can be a master international lawyer, it does not make any difference. The repeated notion - that I may not be unfamiliar, and you are familiar - you use instead of ever addressing my arguments is childish, to say the least.
You cannot be familiar with any laws because you are denying the simple basis of all laws I have been pointing to:
‘’No law, no treaty has in its goals achievement of non-sense and/or impossibility of compliance.’’
Upon actions of Japan (which were listed) after signing the treaty, as well as upon the change is circumstances (which were listed) the treaty lost its sense, the goals of the treaty were forfeited.
You obviously are not familiar with any laws BECAUSE you have been completely ignoring and avoiding common sense and logic, the listed actions of Japan and the listed changes in circumstances.
justone said:As I have said, even if you had 2 degrees in the field the field of international law it wouldn’t change the fact that on DP you cannot maintain laws of common sense and basic logic. Your pathetic need to demonstrate degrees instead of demonstrating basic logic is another proof of your inabilities.
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?