My whole point went right over your head, didn’t it? sigh. Let me spell it out to you. You can “cite” people’s personal opinions all day long. On either side. Just because you may agree with them, that doesn’t mean jack shit to the rest of us. 90% of the crap you link to is nothing but the same drivel you’re lambasting me for linking, although my intent was to be facetious. I did not defend him. How can I defend another person’s friggin opinion. I would never seriously use someone’s opinion as an authoritive cite to prove my point in a debate on an issue such as this. Your cite is not the authority on the issue. He may convince you just because he thinks it is so, but we critical thinkers know that his opinion is just that. I have no illusion that this will stop you from your habit of posting these kind of cites, but I have every intent of doing the exact thing you do as a rebuttal to your “cites” every time i see you do it. If, however, you ever back them up with facts that the person may base their opinion on, that is a different story. I will not get my hopes up on that.
|The debate should really be:
|Is the Iranian leadership a bunch of liars
To a matter of degree, yes, that is not relevant
|who are trying to build a bomb on the sly ?
No it is not
a) They signed away that right when they signed the NNPT
b) ‘Rights’ are contractual - they are not absolute
|If they are, then what should we/anyone do about it ?
I don’t fancy being friendly to Mullahs, but it would be a good idea to remove one of their domestic propaganda tools - I would ship them an NP plant on that basis
|My take is nothing, because anything they get up to on the sly will be carefully monitored
|- and will lead to a nasty accident
The USA will not attack them. Or rather be seen to attack them.
AFAIKnow,
Fine. There are obviously people that’ll try to justify any injustice possible just because it fits their pre-concieved agenda – let’s not forget that the neonutjobs plans for “regime change” go back as far as 1996 with the original Pax Americana concept, written by Wolfowitz as far back as DaddyBush’s Administration – as per leaked to the NYT.
In short, the only ones who keep trying to justify the invasion in legal terms are those that are A-Still sold on the PNAC and/or The Little Emperor and B-Those who get paid for doing so (e.g. any number of lawyers) and C-the only nation outside the US that held their pom-poms high throughout this whole mess: Israel. Wonder why. No, not really. It’s actually quite clear.
I can tell with great certainty that outside those so blinded, finding those that would defend the Iraqi clusterfuck would fit in the fingers of one hand – and you’d likely have a few left.
What’s also risible is that you dismiss the pronouncement of the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, as merely just “another opinion.” Never mind the fact that his is the last word on the matter, as pertains to international laws, for as long as he’s in charge. That the Neonuts decided to use the UN Charter to first, wipe its collective butts with, and secondly, and even more incredible, to justify the invasion of Iraq against the wishes of the very organization that was in charge of hadling the matter. And, I might add, had done their job quite efficiently for the past 12 years. After all, Iraq *was disarmed and thus complied with its end of the bargain. *
Toodles. Enjoy fantasyland. And join the service. I hear they are looking for a few good men. Well, any men will do really.
Assuming, of course that we see anything they do “on the sly”.
Of course we will. America is too brutal to not attack, and run by people to stupid to be subtle. Not that it would matter; no one outside of th United States would be stupid enough to buy any “accidents”.
Uhhhh, cite?
Where do you get the idea that the Secretary-General of the Unitied Nations has the final word on matters pertaining to international law and treaty?? His IS just another opinion…as to REALLY determine if the war is or is not illegal would take a court of law to decide formally. In addition, then you’d get into whether international law trumps a nations sovereign laws, and then whether or not the act was illegal wrt US law…again, this would take a court decision. This Wiki cite doesn’t really go into detail, but I see nothing that says the SG-UN has the final word on all international law.
Give it up Red. Its only opinion and the legal opinions on this are split as to the legality of the US’s actions in Iraq. And it doesn’t really matter wrt the OP in any case. Whether or not the US’s act was illegal, doesn’t mean that Iran’s are…they are unrelated. Be like you saying you could go out and steal because the authorities suspected me of armed robbery. I may or may not be guilty, reguardless of if the police commissioner THINKS I am until I go to trial and the court decides the issue…but reguardless of if I’m guilty or not, you still don’t have a license to steal.
-XT
As I said, is not for me to take your blindfolds off:
International Law Aspects of the Iraq War and Occupation
Once again: might does not right make. You will find NO legal justifications for preventive war in the UN Charter anywhere.
There’s nothing I need to “give up.” Facts are facts, and one of them is that you’ll find any number of lawyers to defend anything – especially when you have unlimited funds to work with.
But the only fact that matters to me is unquestionable. And that’s the breaking of International Law to invade Iraq, thus making the act itself illegal by definition.
Really. It’s not that hard to comprehend if you get rid of the Star-spangled glasses.
I’m sorry, maybe you misunderstood. I meant a cite stating that the SG of the UN is the final authority on intl law. Not another cite that Annan thinks it was illegal.
So as to forstall further hijackage of the thread about the legality of the US invasion of Iraq I have started this GQ thread on the subject. I urge you, RF, to go there and post your thoughts and your links there. If thems the facts, as you say, then it should come out clearly that the US’s invasion was illegal…and we can stop the hijack of this thread, which is about Iran’s right to nuclear weapons…not about the US invasion of Iraq.
Fair enough?
-XT
Wouldn’t kill you to click on the link and read what’s in it prior to knocking your teeth out with the reflexive knee-jerk.
That site happens to be a fully cited timeline of the Iraq invasion, covering every angle of its illegality from the perspective of International Law.
Of course, if the US, under Bush, insists on using the UN and its Charter solely for its own purposes, and as toilet-paper when it doesn’t, nothing I can possibly cite would change your mind.
Yep. But I’m done posting for the day.
Have a good one!
What in the good goddamned fuck does that have to do with the pointed question I asked you twice. I don’t care if you think think the war is illegal or devined from the Righteous God of All That Is Spanish. I don’t care if Annan thinks it. I want a cite stating that he has “the last word on the matter, as pertains to international laws, for as long as he’s in charge.”.
Just to mention briefly that, even removing the USA from the equation, Iran isn’t situated in a particularily politically stable region. After all, it fought a massively bloody war against Irak not long ago. And nuclear weapons aren’t a detterent only against other nuclear weapons-owning countries. It’s quite obvious Irak would never had attacked had Iran been a nuclear power at the time. So, even without the US threat, it would make sense for Iran to devellop such weapons.
And of course, who knows what the future hold? For instance Pakistan shares borders with Iran and has nuclear weapons. Maybe the day could come when relations between Pakistan and Iran could be seriously strained…and then…
Me no like the way you address moi one bit.
Me no respond to you anymore.
Me not going to fight your ignorance. That’s your own battle.
:::infamous Spanish temper under control, Sting playing in the background. Me feels quite well, thank you:::
Me likes it that way.
Adios!
LMAO, all you had to do was provide a cite to back up your assertion and we could have considered my “ignorance” fought. If that is too much of a challenge for you then I don’t blame you for giving up. If your tulips get wilted that easy don’t ignore some ones direct questions and try to obfuscate with more sophism.
If we accept that soverign nations have a right to arm and defend themselves. And, we know that their neighbors have nuclear weapons.A nuke would be the only acceptable deterrent. What else would work.?.
We then have to face that in 50 years from now 75 nations would have nukes.What kind of world are we making.? How do we stop it?
The Sec. Gen of the United Nations is not just another opinion.
Heard that opinion before.
Hmm…let’s see, if the “main spokeperson” for the UN declares a war illegal according to the very Charter he’s bound to uphold, his is just “another opinion.”
So CarrotTop and Kofi Annan carry the same weight in matters pertaining to the UN Charter and its application. :rolleyes:
Learn something new everyday.
Quit moving the goalpost buddy. Where does it say “final authority”? Tony Snow is the spokesperson for the president. Do you think he has the authority of the executive? As far as negotiator goes, just like any diplomat , he can only negotiate what his employers allow him, no more, no less. The SG is barely more than an administrator (or a high powered secretary, if you will). He cannot pass resolutions, dictate to member states or even make demands of anyone that is not under his employ or in his “house”. He reports to the Security Council and informs them of issues they have commanded he keep on top of.
The only thing that would make his opinion have more authority than CarrotTop is that the Charter also empowers the Secretary-General to “bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security”. The fact that he did not do such makes that statement just his personal opinion with no more weight than a bad prop-comedian.
Now I may have oversimplified a tad but you need a hell of alot more evidence than you have provided so far that he has final authority over anything other than his admin duties which does not include “international law”.