Is Iran Next?

[Deus_Vult]

MikeWM:

After you’re done phoning up Cambridge, and all the other universities that teach international law, maybe you’d like to telephone the International Law Commission (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Law_Commission) and tell them they don’t exist, too.

In the meantime, if the airline loses your baggage, or you get attacked by pirates at sea while working out where you are allowed to fish, or wish to assert your copyright under the Berne convention, or you want another country to recognise your passport as a legal travel document, or to recognise your embassy as US territory, you’ll probably be quite happy that international law exists.

Mike

Since we are obviously still going to quibble over International law how about this…

The right and obligation of a governing authority to use force to defend its citizens against an aggressor predates by centuries modern nation-states and modern international law. Christian just war theory, upon which the modern laws of armed conflict are based, recognized such a duty as early as the 4th Century. Since their emergence in the 16th Century, modern nation-states have been believed to hold such a right. While aggression is traditionally considered unlawful, and self-defense lawful, more problematic is the question of whether a first-strike could ever be considered a defensive act rather than an act of aggression. The right of anticipatory self-defense assumes that an aggressor is poised to strike, and that one acts defensively in anticipation of the attack rather than waiting for the attack to occur. Traditionally, it was deemed theoretically possible that even a first-strike could be deemed defensive in nature, and lawful, if it was to forestall an attack that was imminent.

The most widely accepted modern standard for anticipatory self-defense was articulated by U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster in diplomatic correspondence with his British counterpart over the Caroline incident (often mischaracterized as the Caroline “case”) and consisted of two prongs. One was that the need to use force in anticipatory self-defense must first rise to the level of being a necessity, and one that is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. The other requirement was that the action taken must be proportionate to the threat and not be excessive.

To the extent the UN Charter can be deemed a relevant source of international law then some right of self-defense remains, which very well may include a right of anticipatory self-defense. At the same time, in international law, if a consistent pattern of state practice demonstrates a departure from preexisting norms, it can be argued that international law has changed. Some commentators suggest that state practice has indicated that with respect to the use of force the UN Charter no longer is a part of international law. If that is the case, then presumably international law would revert to the standard of anticipatory self-defense articulated by Webster.

The bottom line, then, is that with respect to anticipatory force exercised without Security Council authorization, either the UN Charter is essentially defunct with respect to the laws of armed conflict and the Webster standard continues, or the UN Charter is not defunct but retains the Webster standard, or that the Webster standard is displaced by a stricter standard requiring an armed attack to have occurred before one may invoke a right of self-defense. The prevailing view probably is that, one way or another, anticipatory self-defense is permissible but traditionally has required the existence of an imminent threat.

For full story…Preemptive War and International Law
Steven C. Welsh, Esq., CDI Research Analyst, swelsh@cdi.org
Dec. 5, 2003 cdi.org/news/law/preemptive-war.cfm

 

[MikeWM]

mike182d:

Were they really on opposite sides? Did the Pope ever say that the War was unjust, or that it was preferred if he didn’t go to war?

Everyone prefers that there not be wars, but this is quite different than condemning them.

Furthermore, I think if we asked the Pope the question I asked you, I don’t think his answer would be very different from Bush’s.

I posted this last week, but I suppose there’s no harm in doing so again

“NO TO WAR”! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences. I say this as I think of those who still place their trust in nuclear weapons and of the all-too-numerous conflicts which continue to hold hostage our brothers and sisters in humanity. At Christmas, Bethlehem reminded us of the unresolved crisis in the Middle East, where two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, are called to live side-by-side, equally free and sovereign, in mutual respect. Without needing to repeat what I said to you last year on this occasion, I will simply add today, faced with the constant degeneration of the crisis in the Middle East, that the solution will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed conflict, as if military victories could be the solution. And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than twelve years of embargo? War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations Organization and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations. (13 January 2003)

There’s lot more like that here

vatican.va/holy_father/s…eace_index.html

Mike

 

[thestickman]

MikeWM:

After you’re done phoning up Cambridge, and all the other universities that teach international law, maybe you’d like to telephone the International Law Commission (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Law_Commission) and tell them they don’t exist, too.

In the meantime, if the airline loses your baggage, or you get attacked by pirates at sea while working out where you are allowed to fish, or wish to assert your copyright under the Berne convention, or you want another country to recognise your passport as a legal travel document, or to recognise your embassy as US territory, you’ll probably be quite happy that international law exists.

Mike

So you either are refusing to answer my simple, relevant questions or you are unable to do so.

On the website. Since the UN is involved it must be real and valid, eh?

Regarding the commisson:

The International Law Commission was established by the General Assembly in 1947 to promote the progressive development of international law and its codification. The Commission, which meets annually, is composed of 34 members who are elected by the General Assembly for five year terms and who serve in their individual capacity, not as representatives of their Governments.

That’s hilarious. Based on this website international law is in development and needs to be codified. What your wikipedia searched websites have done is actually solidify my personal belief that not only is the term international law make believe but that it’s been put forward as something real and valid by the most inept and corrupt international body on the planet: The Useless Nations.

 

[MikeWM]

Deus Vult:

Since we are obviously still going to quibble over International law how about this…

I wasn’t aware I was quibbling with you, and anyway the article you posted explicitly implies international law does exist:

Some commentators suggest that state practice has indicated that with respect to the use of force the UN Charter no longer is a part of international law. If that is the case, then presumably international law would revert to the standard of anticipatory self-defense articulated by Webster.

But anyway…

The most widely accepted modern standard for anticipatory self-defense was articulated by U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster in diplomatic correspondence with his British counterpart over the Caroline incident (often mischaracterized as the Caroline “case”) and consisted of two prongs. One was that the need to use force in anticipatory self-defense must first rise to the level of being a necessity, and one that is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. The other requirement was that the action taken must be proportionate to the threat and not be excessive.

Indeed. While some people may argue these conditions were fulfilled with the Iraq invasion, I think we were a long way away from it.

The prevailing view probably is that, one way or another, anticipatory self-defense is permissible but traditionally has required the existence of an imminent threat.

Indeed. Ditto.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

thestickman:

So you either are refusing to answer my simple, relevant questions or you are unable to do so.

It’s all laid out (admittedly not very clearly) in the WikiPedia article I cited earlier

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

The formation of the United Nations created a means for the world community to enforce international law upon members that violate its charter.

Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it any less true.

On the website. Since the UN is involved it must be real and valid, eh?

Actually, yes. The United States ratified the UN charter, same as most other countries.

That’s hilarious. Based on this website international law is in development and needs to be codified.

Yep. You might find there is a lot of domestic law in a state of flux too, with new technologies and new situations to deal with.

Mike

 

[thestickman]

No answers to my simple questions :yawn: oh well, not too surprising.

This portion of this thread has also reaffirmed my sincere belief the US should get out of the Useless Nations and the Useless Nations should get out of the US.

 

[Deus_Vult]

MikeWM:

I wasn’t aware I was quibbling with you, and anyway the article you posted explicitly implies international law does exist:

Indeed. While some people may argue these conditions were fulfilled with the Iraq invasion, I think we were a long way away from it.

I said you ALL were quibbling…I never said it didnt exist…I merely incinuated with my reference that your interpretations of international law was incorrect.

Because in your opinion what? Iraq was of no concern. You and others apparently do not see Islamofascists regimes as imminent threats. Again what do you think we should do differently?

 

[mike182d]

“NO TO WAR”! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences. I say this as I think of those who still place their trust in nuclear weapons and of the all-too-numerous conflicts which continue to hold hostage our brothers and sisters in humanity. At Christmas, Bethlehem reminded us of the unresolved crisis in the Middle East, where two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, are called to live side-by-side, equally free and sovereign, in mutual respect. Without needing to repeat what I said to you last year on this occasion, I will simply add today, faced with the constant degeneration of the crisis in the Middle East, that the solution will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed conflict, as if military victories could be the solution. And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than twelve years of embargo? War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations Organization and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations. (13 January 2003)

Couple points:

1. The Pope briefly mentions Iraq, but I am dumbfounded as to why he would find an embargo on Iraq more devastating to the country than the genocide committed by their own dictator. Pope John Paul the Great was an amazing Pope and future Saint of the Church, but not every Saint was perfect in their teaching - even Augustine wrote his “Retractions” before he died - and this is one issue that I vehemently disagree with. Of all the teachings of this brilliant man, his position on the war was baseless and inconsistent with a 1,950 year-old tradition.
2. “War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity.”

Why do we pray for an end to war instead of the injustices that give rise to it? Yes, in an ideal world, there would be no wars but this is not because of the nature of war but because there would no longer be injustices present in the world that would necessitate war as an answer. So, yes, the Iraq War was a defeat for humanity. Was the invasion itself the cause of defeat? No. It was the fact that a man killed millions of his own people, tried to invade a neighboring country and invoke a form of ethnic cleansing, disregarded the truce he signed after his defeat, abused the Oil for Food scandal to pursuade prominent members of Europe and the U.N. to lift their sanctions against him…and the litany goes on. Is this war to eliminate a ruthless dictator and liberate the Iraqi people a worse state of affairs than what they were living under before?

Like I said, it is absurd to shun wars instead of the evils that necessite war in the first place. Why wasn’t the media providing a daily death count of Iraqi civilians while Saddam was in power? Funny how no one seemed to care about them then…

Secondly, the Pope is not saying that war is *never *inevitable, but rather that it is not *always *inevitable.

1. “war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions”

This is in complete disagreement with the Catholic just war tradition. This is not an infallible proclamation by the Pope, nor could it ever be because of the contradiction. “Last resort” is nowhere to be found in discussions on just-war theory prior to the 20th century and is a contemporary invention.

There is no such thing as a Catholic pacifist.

 

[MikeWM]

mike182d:

This is in complete disagreement with the Catholic just war tradition. This is not an infallible proclamation by the Pope, nor could it ever be because of the contradiction. “Last resort” is nowhere to be found in discussions on just-war theory prior to the 20th century and is a contemporary invention.

No, it’s not infallible, of course not. It is simply the words of a very wise man who was closer to God than any of us could hope to be. That makes his words vital to listen to - but of course you are free to disagree if your conscience tells you otherwise.

There is no such thing as a Catholic pacifist.

Well, evidently there is. There were Catholic conscientious objectors in every war we’ve had, as far as I’m aware. They are perfectly allowed, in para 2311 of the cathechism.

I’d say more, but I’m going on holiday in a few hours and really need to do things like pack So I won’t be around to reply to anything else either for a few days.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

Well, evidently there is. There were Catholic conscientious objectors in every war we’ve had, as far as I’m aware. They are perfectly allowed, in para 2311 of the cathechism.

[2311](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2311.htm’) Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way

This doesn’t say Catholics are pacifists, or that pacificism is an accepted Church doctrine. It says “Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms.”

 

[gnjsdad]

thestickman:

Soverignty as a concept was and will remain whether the nonsensical notion of international law grows wings or plants flowers. One is real and measurable while international law is a fantasy.

Again, who enforces international law? Who writes it? When was it 1st created?

a sentiment shared by terrorists everywhere.

You may want to think a bit more before posting things such as this.:yup:

 

[gnjsdad]

Deus Vult:

So in your opinion should Iran be left alone?

Your question poses a false dichotomy: nuke them or “leave them alone”.

The best way to bring about a peaceful Iran which does not export terrorism is to allow the Iranians to manage their own democratic evolution. The desire for democratic reform within Iran is strong. The best way to strengthen the Iranian mullahs is to do what we’re doing now: threatening “regime change”, or worse, a nuclear assault.
Deus Vult:

Are you not concerned about Iran’s nuclear enrichment program?

It’s a little late in the game to be concerned about nuclear enrichment programs. That genie left the bottle decades ago. That any nation has nuclear weapons in this day and age is to be regretted.
Deus Vult:

Are all Islamofascist regimes our good neighbors in your world?

I won’t answer questions with silly pseudo-words like “Islamofascist”.
Deus Vult:

Should we trust the UN and or EU to be of much assistance or should we protect ourselves at all costs?

Negotiation is infinitely preferable to war; but you’ve got it exactly backwards. The issue in the OP is an unprovoked US strike against Iran. It is they who need protection from us in that scenario.
Deus Vult:

and this junk about these nations not hating us before Bush is ridiculous…

I don’t believe I ever said that, but the hatred did increase exponentially under GW Bush.
Deus Vult:

hence the photo I sent …Islamofascists hate all Christian nations even though we have open arms to the world and its religions

I would say that the Western nations now militarily active in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East are not Christian in any appreciable sense. Formerly Christian, perhaps; now thoroughly secular.

 

[vern_humphrey]

gnjsdad:

a sentiment shared by terrorists everywhere.

You may want to think a bit more before posting things such as this.:yup:

You talk to terrorists a lot, do you? That’s how you know about their feelings and sentiments?

 

[thestickman]

gnjsdad:

a sentiment shared by terrorists everywhere.

And your personal experience that allows you to know any sentiments terrorist may have is?

 

[mjdonnelly]

For those so opposed to the war and say that there were other things we could have done, list them.

We had trade embargoes, didn’t work.

Political pressure, didn’t work.

I’m sure some people were praying, didn’t work.

UN sanctions, might have worked if the UN had a spine and actually tried to enforce the sanction, but they don’t. Didn’t work

Some say he didn’t do much in those 12 years, it isn’t suppose to be a measure of how much he did. There were rules set, either he followed them or he didn’t. Well, he decided that he wasn’t going to follow the UN sanctions. That was reason enough to invade Iraq, despite whatever additional intelligence was gathered.

 

[Philip_P]

mjdonnelly:

For those so opposed to the war and say that there were other things we could have done, list them.

We had trade embargoes, didn’t work.

Political pressure, didn’t work.

I’m sure some people were praying, didn’t work.

UN sanctions, might have worked if the UN had a spine and actually tried to enforce the sanction, but they don’t. Didn’t work

Some say he didn’t do much in those 12 years, it isn’t suppose to be a measure of how much he did. There were rules set, either he followed them or he didn’t. Well, he decided that he wasn’t going to follow the UN sanctions. That was reason enough to invade Iraq, despite whatever additional intelligence was gathered.

There were no WMDs, so it looks like things were working. I would have supported continuing the inspections regime, even if it meant the US and Britain continuing it without or even against UN support.

Iraq had not invaded anyone, so containment was working.

In short, the trigger to launch a war (and a war aimed at overthrowing a sovereign state at that) had not been reached.

 

[gnjsdad]

vern humphrey:

You talk to terrorists a lot, do you? That’s how you know about their feelings and sentiments?

No. By their deeds they show what they think of international law.

 

[mjdonnelly]

Philip P:

There were no WMDs, so it looks like things were working.

We still don’t know what were in those trucks fleeing Iraq just before we invaded. And Intelligence gathering is not an exact science. You can’t let not finding any weapons change how intelligence was percieved in the past. It is that hindsight thing again. And, the WMD thing wasn’t the only reason, it was just the most public.
Philip P:

I would have supported continuing the inspections regime, even if it meant the US and Britain continuing it without or even against UN support.

We wanted to continue the inspections, Saddam was given an ultimatum to lets the inspectors continue their work. He kicked them out of the country and never let them back in.

 

[gnjsdad]

mjdonnelly:

We wanted to continue the inspections, Saddam was given an ultimatum to lets the inspectors continue their work. He kicked them out of the country and never let them back in.

You’re wrong here. The UN inspectors were in Iraq up until a few days before the U.S. invaded.

 

[mike182d]

MikeWM:

I’d say more, but I’m going on holiday in a few hours and really need to do things like pack So I won’t be around to reply to anything else either for a few days.

lol. Then godspeed! Have a safe trip