Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Jul 2004 02:19:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1177 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > > Illegal in the same way that the speed limit along the QEW in Ontario, Canada is
> > > 100 km/hour--If a state trooper pulls you over in Florida and gives you a ticket
> > > due to one time in your life you were clocked on the QEW doing 110--that ticket
> > > is illegal. It's not sanctioned by the Ontario Provincial Police, nor is it
> > > enforcable in any court of law.
> >
> > What in the world was that about????
>
> Its an example to show that you can't use a country's laws legally in another
> country. The UN had the resolution--the UN has to deal with enforcing it. The
> US, stating the UN resolution as reason to invade, but at hte same time acting
> against what the UN stated, started an illegal war. I thought it was clear.
I thought I made it clear that I was not making any reference to the U.N.
resolution you are refering to.
>
> >
> > >
> > > If the UN has a resolution, and this resolution was broken by a sovereign
> > > country, then it's the UN that has the lawful right to decide what to do about
> > > with the nation breaking UN sanctions. The US, acting against the UN and going
> > > it alone, started an illegal war on Iraq--the US used the defiance of Iraq to
> > > Res 1441 (and many many others as people here have listed in the past) as the
> > > pretext to invade.
> >
> >
> > "Because the U.N. chose not to take action on a specific front does not mean
> > action was not justified on another." Which you promptly ignored with the
> > above.
>
> Citing the breaking of a UN resolution and yet not acting on the behalf on the
> UN is not justified. I don't ignore anything :)
You just ignored it again!!!
> > Dunno, but I detected hostility was coming - you know, something like hurling
> > "idiotic" at me.
>
> Not at you, at the statement. WW2 was started because hitler invaded poland.
> The events leading to this may have been 'easily' preventable, but the actual
> war was Just.
But it happened because of stupidity, thus it was Yet Another Stupid European
War caused by their incessant squabbling. That some of the participants made
the only decision that they could make at the time the decision was presented to
them doesn't mean that the events that lead up to that weren't from StOOpidity.
Like I said, we've been over this before.
> > > willful deaths of citizens around the world. Atrocities on atrocities
> > > throughout the world. Yet, here, now, we're mired in Iraq? Why? I think
> > > that's a rather important question.
> >
> > But not for the matter at hand - or are you saying that it is unjust to unseat a
> > genocidal tyrant? I keep having to harp on that point because you keep wanting
> > to dance around it.
>
> Again, I recall when SH was committing atrocities--Kurds dying and such.
> However, I don't recall him making the headlines over the last couple of years.
> So if SH was a bad man *then* why wait until now for the invasion? And looking
> at the atrocities going on in the world today, why attack Iraq for past
> transgressions?
Sigh. You danced around the question again.
> > If Justness and Unjustness doesn't enter into it, then you agree with my
> > challenge to you saying that removing Saddam is inherently unjust.
>
>
> I'm being swayed by the 'sovereign nation' idea--I personally dislike SH but
> does that give legitimacy for another sovereign nation to invade, especially
> based on no 'imminent threat' to other countries?
Its okay people to kill people in area X, but not in area Y?
> > You do recall this is a disagreement about "unjustness", not wisdom? We both
> > agree the war is stupid.
> >
> > -->Bruce<--
>
> Just = legitimate or legal or even moral.
adjective
1. fair and impartial: acting with fairness and impartiality
2. morally correct: done, pursued, or given in accordance with what is morally
right
3. reasonable: valid or reasonable
Nothing about legal or legitmate.
The legitimacy of this war has been
> disproved many times over. Some may disagree on my idea that this is an illegal
> war, but Dubya did base this war on the breaking of UN res 1441 (and others).
> And morality, eh, we already know the answer to that one.
And the morality of Saddam is well known (absolutely none).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
