Uhuh…I see. The ‘war was clearly illegal’ gambit again, huh? You wave away my arguement by fiat…excellent. Despite the complexity of the question, and the fact that I’ve never seen a definitive answer to this from an ACTUAL legal standpoint, you just wave it all away and state categorically that, yes…it was clearly illegal. I mean, Kofi Annan told the BBC it was…so case closed (well, and according to your other cite, Robert Dreyfuss says the whole no fly zones were illegal too of course).
As for the last part…I don’t think the UN resolutions or treaties are worth the paper they are printed on. Obviously. I don’t believe there is much respect for the UN either. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this very thread…
(awaits the standard ‘But America violated everything first! Its all THEIR fault!!’ response)
May I advise that you sit while you wait – because I’ve said no such thing.
The whole matter can be rather simplified by straightforwardly comparing Empires of old. Seriusly, yours just happens to be the one we live under – likely better than some in some matters, worse in others. Nothing new under the sun.
Point being America is behaving like any other Empire before it – and if we are able to avoid nuclear holocaust, pretty much similar behavior can be expected from the next one. Militarism rules over diplomacy, as the the willingness to use force anytime anything interferes with the ultimate goal: world dominion.
Know what though? Kind of glad I won’t be around to see it, but the US’s empire, IMO, has reached its pinnacle. And from there there’s only one way to go…go figure.
Not quite Jesus Christ stuff – hell, can’t even touch The Amazing Kreskin but I can get a hold of, a rather cynical, yet reality-based, RedFury dude.
Unlike you and your cohorts, I find it rather difficult to ignore the writing on the wall. Hell, its been there for quite some time now. Not like you need an interpreter.
Perchance we should blame the dictionary…if it were only that easy.
Actually, nothing of the sort happened in Germany. The German Armed Forces High Command surrendered unconditionally and ordered their troops to stand down. However, with no civilian government left in place there was nobody around to sign a treaty. The Allied powers simply set up shop in Berlin and created the Allied Control Council among themselves.
Thus, the invasion of Iraq in this decade is akin to an Allied occupation of West Germany in, say, 1960.
No we aren’t. Sanctions were imposed on India for several years after the first Indian thermonuclear detonation in 1998, along with thirteen other countries.
Karl Dönitz was named as President of the German Reich by Adolf Hitler and assumed full political control of the country when Hitler committed suicide. And it was President Dönitz who ordered the German surrender not some General. On Dönitz’ orders, General Alfred Jodl signed the surrender document with the Americans and British on May 7, 1945. Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel signed an equivalent document with the Soviet Army.
So we’re still talking about Iran here, or has the thread been hijacked into “Amerika is teh suxorz!” territory?
Instability, potential for use in wars of aggression, terrorist support, dictatorship or fundamentalist influence in government, etc…
Saying that a state sponsors terrorism is a “propaganda term”?
Not always, no. These things should be handled on an individual basis, not treated like the rules for a game.
An aggressor that wants to attack folks without reprisals is not ‘protecting’ itself. If Iran truly wanted to protect itself, it would stop sponsoring terrorism. But it doesn’t want peace and safety, it wants to be able to attack with impunity.
Yes, you’re quite right, he wasn’t “some General” (although since I didn’t mention any generals, I don’t see what your point is), he was a Grand Admiral. He was also the de jure of the Reich for about three weeks.
Yes, well done. Unfortunately, a) a surrender is not a peace treaty, but a ceasefire; and b) the Allies never recognized Donitz as the German Head of State.
Good, so you could discuss all the points I raised which were about Iran.
Well, as long as we’re not talking about the US then.
Can you address this issue without mentioning the US? Or can we not discuss whether or not Iran should have nukes without falling back on a tu quoque fallacy?
Hell, let’s assume that the US shouldn’t have nukes, the US supports terrorism, and the US should be forcibly disarmed. Great, we can stop discussing the US and nukes.
What about Iran?
Pretend it was Micronesia leading the charge against Iran having WMD.
Or Jesus, or who-the-heck-ever.
Can we discuss the claim and not (only one of the) nations which are making that claim?
Are you aware that de jure means “by law”? Donitz was the legally appointed President of Germany when he ordered the German surrender. Saying that the military surrendered because they was no civilian government is incorrect.
And yes, Donitz had been an Admiral before being appointed President. But it was his authority as President he used to surrender. His former position as a military officer gave him no more authority than Eisenhower’s did when he was de jure President of the United States.
Well I agree…especially if you widen things a bit to encompass the entire UNSC. Definitely nothing new…except perhaps the US (and the others on the SC) don’t quite swing the big bat the way they did in the good old days.
I disagree. I don’t think the US’s goal is world domination (depending on how you want to define that), but on maintaining the status quo, and also our own power. As well as protecting our interests and ourselves of course.
Well, I tend to agree…I think the US probably is waning, though very slightly thus far. I’d think you’d be happy by the prospect. No more sole superpower, but lots of little regional powers, or perhaps 2 or more global superpowers. Who knows, maybe the Euro’s together will be back on top? There is a cheery thought, ehe?
Quite true. And the US has as much right as anyone to protect ITSELF by attacking Iran to prevent them getting a weapon that could threaten us. After all, Iran is protecting itself (in theory, for the sake of arguement) against some perceived future threat by aquiring nuclear weapons…so the US attacking Iran would be along the same line.
Right?
This is why I made the point above that ‘right’ doesn’t really come into things in the real world. In the REAL world, of course Iran isn’t in the ‘right’ to pursue nuclear weapons. They signed a fucking treaty saying they WOULDN’T do so. They accepted the goodies for their signature. Now they want to back out. The supposed threat of the US attacking them is spurious…we all know that (well, Der probably doesn’t). The Iranians know it. The only reason they ARE threatened at all is because Iran having nuclear weapons is a perceived (and I think very real) threat…and its a threat in a region that is vital not just to the US but to the entire world. So, they have deliberately pushed through the one thing that would bring about a military response from the west and put themselves into a catch 22…well, IF the west were inclined to do anything about it that is.
‘Right’ doesn’t come into this equation. The only things that are going to matter is if The World™ decides to procrastinate long enough for Iran to aquire the things, and then deal with the consequences, or if The World™ decides the threat is real enough to do something about it now. Or, if the US has enough political will and stomach to do something about it while The World™ dithers. Or, if Israel decides that IT has the political will, stomach and military capability to do something about it.
My guess is The World™ will dither, the US won’t won’t be able to muster the will or stomach to do anything either with Iraq hanging over our heads, and will have to sit this one out, and Israel will probably not be able to do much either after the recent events in Lebanon…so Iran will get the things by default. What happens after that is anyone’s guess…though for my part I have some pretty vivid nightmares going on over it.
You are correct however that following the German surrender the Allies refused to recognize any German government’s authority to sign a peace treaty in 1945. The treaty officially ending the war was not signed until 1990.
They’re just as irrelevant for Iran as they are for the US.
Actually, no we can’t, because we can’t justify the US having nukes but not Iran.
I didn’t say the US shouldn’t have nukes. so that’s a non-starter.
Sorry, but the hypocrisy is pertinent and cannot be waved away. I think all countries have the same right to defend themselves. I’m not saying the US should disarm it’s nuclear arsenal just because it’s an aggressive rogue nation with a history of sponsoring terrorism. I’m say that’s NOT a reason to disarm EITHER the US or Iran.
I know exactly what it means. I also pointed out that the Allies did NOT recognise him as the head of state, and thus only accepted a military surrender.
Eisenhower retired from the United States Army long before he ran for President. Donitz was still Commander-in-Chief of the Navy when appointed President, and never resigned his post. So his former position as a military officer gave him no authority, but the position he still held gave him plenty.
You are doing to the word “defense” what certain unsavory elements have done to the word “freedom.”
You are also commiting the fallacy of equivocation where ‘defense’ morphs from ‘being able to protect themselves’ to ‘having Weapons of Mass Destruction’.
What exactly is the problem here?
I just said we don’t have to assume that the US should have nukes. We can even assume that the US shouldn’t have nukes.
:rolleyes: You just said that we can’t justify the US having nukes but not Iran. So to get you to discuss the actual OP, I said that we can say that the US shouldn’t have nukes.
Can we discuss Iran?
No?
What you’re handwaving away is your tu quoque fallacy. If Ghengis Kahn said that Iran shouldn’t have nukes, we could still debate the premise without lowering the discussion to the level of pure fallacy.
So an aggressive nation that sponsors terrorism and wants nukes to prevent those that it attacks from protecting themselves is doing so in the name of ‘defense’.
It’s like saying that everybody deserves safety, so the neighberhood criminal should have weaponized anthrax in case his victims fight back.
No, not every nation has the ‘right’ to a military force, or weapons of mass destruction, especially if it uses those in naked acts of aggression. The Axis powers did not have a ‘right’ to their war machine in order to ‘protect’ themselves from those they attacked.
Certainly you could argue that after they attacked, the Axis no longer had a right to maintain a military force.
While your constant pleading about “state-sponsored terrorism” might make us dislike Iran, it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the Iranian military. They’ve already got one of those, but it hasn’t been deployed aggressively in the last twenty years.
Given, then, that we can agree the Iranians aren’t prone to invading other states, what gives you the idea they’d be any more likely to launch nukes at them?
