Is Iran Next?

[gilliam]

MikeWM:

That international law exists? Surely there are some things so rudimentary and obvious that I can assume they are known? Do I have to prove that the President of the United States is called George Bush, or that there is a thing called a Constitution? We must be able to assume some basic knowledge, else we’ll never get further than defining things.

Mike

Well, Mike, there really isn’t an ‘international law’ what we have are a series of treaties that some countries have signed and some have not. It was a trap and you fell into it.

Take the “international law on the treatment of war prisoners” that is the Geneva convention, which we have signed, which we are following, but the terrorists have not signed and are not following.

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

That international law exists? Surely there are some things so rudimentary and obvious that I can assume they are known? Do I have to prove that the President of the United States is called George Bush, or that there is a thing called a Constitution? We must be able to assume some basic knowledge, else we’ll never get further than defining things.

Mike

That’s a good one.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Yes – when you call upon any law, you are bound to produce or give a cite to it.

 

[thestickman]

MikeWM:

I’m not going to do your homework for you, but this article

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

might be a start.

Mike

LOL!!! Homework? Too funny. Btw, the info of your site reads right out of never-never land:

In addition, states adopted a number of spoken or unspoken conventions that dictated their interaction with each other.

Unspoken? What a trip. How do you enforce an unspoken agreenment? How do the parties know they’ve done this? Their citizens? Who has the record of the unspoken agreements? Who writes the tickets when they are violated? Pays the fines? Does the jail time?

This one is funny too:

Although there may be exceptions, most states enter into legal commitments to other states out of enlightened self-interest rather than adherence to a body of law that is higher than their own.

Enlightened self-interest?

The reality is, there is no such thing as international law. There are treaties between nations but that ain’t law.

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

Are you not responsible for what you say?

Yep. I’m not responsible for your misinterpreting it though.

This comment reinforces my contention, and shows the “incorrect implication” was in fact correct.

Do you hold that we should have alliances only with "paragons of virtue? Only nations that are perfect?

Nope. I said Iraq wasn’t a paragon of virtue. That doesn’t imply we should only deal with paragons of virtue. If we were to give marks out of 10, 10 being a paragon, you may want to trade arms with those above 7, for example, whereas Iraq would be lower than that.

You can believe you can imply what I’m saying as much as you like, but if you’re going to imply the wrong things, it’s not going to get us very far.

That accusation is so fantastic that you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.

Iraq successfully gained the support of the United States of America (Ronald Reagan) and took supply of chemical weapons from them.

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein)

On 25 May 1994, The U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that pathogenic (meaning disease producing), toxigenic (meaning poisonous) and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It added: These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War)

Despite the removal of Saddam and his regime by Coalition forces, there is deep resentment and anger in Iran that it was Western companies based in West Germany, France, and the U.S. that helped Iraq develop its chemical weapons arsenal in the first place, and that the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons throughout the war.

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon)

Will that do? Seems this is about as fantastic as the last time you accused me of fantasies’.

Oh? We were wrong to depose the Nazis from power? To kick out the Kaiser? To unseat Jefferson Davis?

Where do you get these wild accusations?

Jefferson Davis was involved in a civil war, which is very little to do with the international law dealing in countries attacking each other; and last time I looked the Nazis were invading countries left, right and centre, and the Kaiser was declaring war left, right and centre.

Conversely, Iraq hadn’t done very much at all for 12 years, neither invaded anywhere or declared war on anywhere. Hence the difference between a pre-emptive war and a war against aggression. Your examples have nothing to do with it.

That would be the same UN whose crooked officials were helping Saddam use the Oil for Food program to buy weapons?

Yes, there was corruption. You jail people for corruption, not use it as a pretext to declare war on people.

Mike

 

[thestickman]

MikeWM:

Yes, there was corruption. You jail people for corruption, not use it as a pretext to declare war on people.

Mike

Good thing America didn’t use corruption as the sole pretext for declaring war on anyone then, correct?

 

[mike182d]

vern humphrey:

How long could we afford to let him ignore the truce and built up his armed forces?

The greater theological question is would such an action be just? When elected officials are entrusted by God with the care and maintenance of a well-ordered and just society, is such an action permissable on any grounds? How does allowing for the disregard of a truce after defeat in an unjust, aggressive war aid in the establishment of a just society?

By definition, to have let Saddam Hussein continue unpunished would be contrary to maitaining a just society and therefore contrary to Catholic social teaching…at least the 1,950 years of Catholic social theology that pre-dates the 1960s.

I would much rather be in agreement with Sts. Augustine, Bernard, Aquinas, et cetera than the likes of the National Catholic Reporter.

 

[mike182d]

MikeWM,

Is it better for millions of Iraqis to be brutally tortured and killed so that a fascist dictator can maintain his power, or for 50,000 to die in liberating that nation?

Are mass graves better than car bombs?

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

Yep. I’m not responsible for your misinterpreting it though.

Your failure to communicate is not my fault.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

You said what you said.

MikeWM:

Nope. I said Iraq wasn’t a paragon of virtue. That doesn’t imply we should only deal with paragons of virtue. If we were to give marks out of 10, 10 being a paragon, you may want to trade arms with those above 7, for example, whereas Iraq would be lower than that.

And you establish scoring criteria, how?

Here’s a hint – a horseback guess is still a horseback guess, even if you hang numbers on it.

MikeWM:

You can believe you can imply what I’m saying as much as you like, but if you’re going to imply the wrong things, it’s not going to get us very far.

And your failure to stand behind what you say isn’t moving things along, either.

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein)

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War)

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon)

Will that do? Seems this is about as fantastic as the last time you accused me of fantasies’.

No, it won’t do – no such weapons were used against us, which was my point.

MikeWM:

Jefferson Davis was involved in a civil war, which is very little to do with the international law dealing in countries attacking each other; and last time I looked the Nazis were invading countries left, right and centre, and the Kaiser was declaring war left, right and centre.

And Saddam, who invaded two of his neighbors WASN’T “declaring war left, right and centre?”

MikeWM:

Conversely, Iraq hadn’t done very much at all for 12 years, neither invaded anywhere or declared war on anywhere. Hence the difference between a pre-emptive war and a war against aggression. Your examples have nothing to do with it.

Except massacre their own people, give support to international terrorism, violate the truce agreements, lock on or shoot at our planes, and divert money from the Oil for Food program to rebuild their offensive military capability.

MikeWM:

Yes, there was corruption. You jail people for corruption, not use it as a pretext to declare war on people.

Mike

Ah, so YOU would volunteer to go into Iraq all by yourself with a pair of handcuffs and arrest Saddam Hussain?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[MikeWM]

gilliam:

Well, Mike, there really isn’t an ‘international law’ what we have are a series of treaties that some countries have signed and some have not. It was a trap and you fell into it.

Take the “international law on the treatment of war prisoners” that is the Geneva convention, which we have signed, which we are following, but the terrorists have not signed and are not following.

There’s no such thing as international law!!! Oh, I’ve seen some silly things here, but this takes the biscuit, it really does.

Am I hallucinating the 1288-page book on my desk here called ‘International Law’??? Published by Cambridge University Press too, maybe they are going mad. While you’re at it you’d better phone up Cambridge University and tell them they are teaching a subject that doesn’t exist as part of their Law degree course! Am I hallucinating when talking to my good friend who has a doctorate in International Law??? Wow.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

thestickman:

The reality is, there is no such thing as international law. There are treaties between nations but that ain’t law.

Same as my last post, to you.

I look forward to hearing the result of your conversation with Cambridge University when you tell them a subject they teach doesn’t exist.

Mike

 

[thestickman]

MikeWM:

Same as my last post, to you.

I look forward to hearing the result of your conversation with Cambridge University when you tell them a subject they teach doesn’t exist.

Mike

Till you can answer those simple questions I asked you it doesn’t matter if they still teach Alchemy at Cambridge. There is no such thing as international law. You can have 3 million books on international law if ya want. It won’t change the fact no such thing exists.

Maybe you can convince me in that special unspoken fashion as described earlier

 

[mike182d]

MikeWM:

There’s no such thing as international law!!! Oh, I’ve seen some silly things here, but this takes the biscuit, it really does.

I think what he was getting at is that the concept of international “law” is absurd because the international commuity is not a sovereign state; what international entity, exactly, has the authority to produce law that binds all sovereign states?

The terrorists recognize this which is why they don’t follow it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mike182d:

I think what he was getting at is that the concept of international “law” is absurd because the international commuity is not a sovereign state; what international entity, exactly, has the authority to produce law that binds all sovereign states?

Bingo!

mike182d:

The terrorists recognize this which is why they don’t follow it.

Bingo again.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Philip_P]

mike182d:

I think what he was getting at is that the concept of international “law” is absurd because the international commuity is not a sovereign state; what international entity, exactly, has the authority to produce law that binds all sovereign states?

The terrorists recognize this which is why they don’t follow it.

But the treaties and agreements that make up international law are treaties entered into and recognized by sovreign states. That’s the authority. Throw out international law and you throw out the legitimacy of the concept of sovereignty upon which it is based.

As for the terrorists not recognizing international law - criminals don’t recognize domestic law. That doesn’t mean the police are free to ignore the law in carrying out their duties. The same applies at the international level to in regard to terrorists. We are not free to ignore international law (much less abandon our moral standards).

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

Your failure to communicate is not my fault.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

You said what you said.

I sure did, and you sure misinterpreted it. But there we go.

And you establish scoring criteria, how?

Here’s a hint – a horseback guess is still a horseback guess, even if you hang numbers on it.

True. It would perhaps be wise to come up with better criteria than ‘the enemy of my enemy gets weapons’. Of course in this particular war (Iran-Iraq), weapons were supplied to both sides, but anyway…

And your failure to stand behind what you say isn’t moving things along, either.

I stand by everything I’ve said. Show me where I haven’t.

No, it won’t do – no such weapons were used against us, which was my point.

Ah, Gulf War Syndrome?

United States Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi’s panel found that more recent studies suggest the veterans’ illnesses are neurological and apparently are linked to exposure to neurotoxins such as the nerve gas sarin, the anti-nerve gas drug pyridostigmine bromide and pesticides that affect the nervous system.

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war_syndrome)

Well, maybe those specific chemical weapons were the ones Germany gave them rather than the US ones, eh?

And Saddam, who invaded two of his neighbors WASN’T “declaring war left, right and centre?”

Nope. Not for 12 years.

Except massacre their own people, give support to international terrorism, violate the truce agreements, lock on or shoot at our planes, and divert money from the Oil for Food program to rebuild their offensive military capability.

None of which allows a preventative war.

Ah, so YOU would volunteer to go into Iraq all by yourself with a pair of handcuffs and arrest Saddam Hussain?

Nope. Never said I would.

Mike

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

Throw out international law and you throw out the legitimacy of the concept of sovereignty upon which it is based.

That’s as nonsensical a statement as I’ve read in a while.

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?

 

[MikeWM]

mike182d:

MikeWM,

Is it better for millions of Iraqis to be brutally tortured and killed so that a fascist dictator can maintain his power, or for 50,000 to die in liberating that nation?

Are mass graves better than car bombs?

It’s a tough question. But when the leader of the United States and the Pope are on the opposite sides of the question, I’ll go with the Holy Father.

Mike

 

[Deus_Vult]

Philip P:

But the treaties and agreements that make up international law are treaties entered into and recognized by sovreign states. That’s the authority. Throw out international law and you throw out the legitimacy of the concept of sovereignty upon which it is based.

As for the terrorists not recognizing international law - criminals don’t recognize domestic law. That doesn’t mean the police are free to ignore the law in carrying out their duties. The same applies at the international level to in regard to terrorists. We are not free to ignore international law (much less abandon our moral standards).

Let’s not quibble over semantics…if we did it any other way…we would have to wait for another 9/11 attack or wait until Iran has a nuke and uses it. Then we would have a just war? That’s ridiculous…we are protecting ourselves. Naysayers please justify why we should do nothing…what should we do in your opinion?

 

[MikeWM]

thestickman:

That’s as nonsensical a statement as I’ve read in a while.

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?

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

 

[mike182d]

MikeWM:

It’s a tough question. But when the leader of the United States and the Pope are on the opposite sides of the question, I’ll go with the Holy Father.

Mike

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.