No, Sua, vigilantism is attempting to enforce one’s own interpretation of the law. I’m not trying to arrest GWB, I’m just expessing an opinion that he is violating the letter of the UN charter. It really isn’t that hard to “intepret.” Aggression is justified only for self-defense or in the case of an “imminent threat.” The latter justification is debatable in this case, but only barely. The US has certainly failed to show any evidence that Iraq is an imminent threat. The former justification can’t be asserted at all, so I don’t know what’s left to interpret.
Now we get into philosophy. Language cannot be used perfectly.
Diogenes,
1,000 people may witness a person pull out a gun and shoot his wife. The legality of his action is not determined until a court hears the case.
You say now that you are expressing your opinion that the war is illegal. From where I sit, you have been asserting a fact, such as when you wrote
I assume that you meant to add “in my opinion,” to that sentence?
Sua
No, it’s an objective fact. Which criterion has it met?
Let me clarify further. It is a fact that the US invasion of Iraq does not meet the criteria expessed for justified aggression in the UN charter. It is my opinion that this makes the invasion illegal.
This was pulled from the National Review Online.
Although I’m still curious why there were officers at a regular chemical plant.
Well, let’s look at the criteria. You wrote:
How have the UNSC and/or ICJ defined “self-defense”? Must their be enemy troops in your territory? Must they be in your territory and have actually killed some of your citizens? Must they have troops massed on your border? What, exactly?
Have the UNSC or ICJ tackled “imminent threat”? When is a threat imminent? When it is 2 minutes away? 2 hours? 2 years? And what is “threat”? Potential injury to citizens or property, or to interests, or to friends and allies? Which one?
So the UNSC and the ICJ have neither interpreted the criterion or applied them to this situation. Yet you claim that it is an “objective fact” that the criterion have not been met.
Diogenes, if “international law” means anything, it means the institutions on international law. Only they can determine what is “objective fact” in this situation - and they have not done so.
If you wish to argue this in terms of legality, you have to respect the judicial process. You cannot claim that international law has been violated when the only institutions authorized and qualified to make that determination have not done so.
Sua
BTW, Diogenes, that the criteria need to be interpreted by a competent authority is deliberate. The UN Charter could have specified precise criteria - you may attack when X number of enemy troops are within X distance of your territory, or if X number of your citizens have been killed by the enemy, or some other “objective facts.”
The Charter does not do that because the drafters recognized that circumstances change and the future could not be predicted. So they used subjective terminology - and left it to the UNSC to apply the terminology to the situation at hand.
Sua
Since it was the UN charter that was violated, I am wondering now if there was a resolution passed or proposed by the UN that Condemns the US coalition attack on Iraq. It seems to me the UN should be the most agrieved by this action.
As to this whole chemical weapons plant thing, can we say that perhaps the wolf is always at the door. However, it would behoove us to stop crying his name until we actually see him.
Didn’t I suggest that in the second post of this thread?
Just a short note to commend the Americans that have not been lobotomized by the massive propaganda campaign with which they have been bombarded since the beginning of this murderous farce. Reading your comments tells me that all might not be lost in the US.
Because I’d really like to believe that those that have indeed been duped, are backing their Resident purely out of naive and jingoistic self-delusion. But I am not so sure…seems to me, too many bright individuals, here and elsewhere, are making the absurd excuses their own.
Does that mean that the rather extreme fundamentalist neocon PNAC factions of the Perles, Wolfowiztes, Rumsfelds, Cheynes, et al, are really such a large and representative segment of US society?
I shudder to think it is so.
Should I expect an update and retraction from Fox News any time soon? :rolleyes: How about from the OP?
RedFury, could you publish your cirriculum vitae, so that we can review your qualifications and understand why your though processes lead to Truth and our lead to “naive and jingoistic self-delusion” and "making absurd excuses [our] own.’
'Cause you see, what you are doing is judging our intelligence and our self-awareness, and finding them wanting. And the fascinating thing is, you can make these judgments even though you have the same information available that we do.
This can only mean (i) you are possessed of near-supernatural intelligence and foresight, (ii) you are a high-ranking member of a large intelligence organization, or (iii) you hold advanced degrees in psychology, sociology, political science and history.
I’m sure your c.v. will clear this all up.
Sua
Yes. I was just waiting until the reports to the contrary were in. Your proactive method has much to recommend it, however; it is not likely that those arguing on the side of the OP will return to the stinking pile that they left on the sidewalk earlier.
Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!
Are we sure that this refers to the same site as the OP does? The article cited in the OP says “troops were examining several sites of interest.” It also says, “Coalition troops are holding two Iraqi generals said to be in charge of the facility.” Why would two generals be in charge of a plant that was abandoned long ago?
Does it really matter if it is the exact same site? The point is that sites which were thought to be chemical weapons manufacturing sites were later found not to be. I can actually see a bit of cunning in having a couple of soldiers pose as generals and defend an empty plant to make the coalition forces think it was important. At very least you’re distracting some of their forces while they investigate the plant and you’ve got more time to entrench Bhagdad. No idea if this is what has happened, but it is a possibility. The point is that the facts aren’t in.
I happen to believe something will be found, but I still disagree with people who believe that if we find something during the war it justifies the whole thing. The whole point is that you need the smoking gun BEFORE you start killing people. Otherwise how can you claim the high ground?
Enjoy,
Steven
or worst (IV) he could have some common sense. Really Sua it just takes a few hour to review every declaration that came from your president in the last 5 months the few that are not a clear lie ar absurd exagerations. This war and it’s reason are absurd.
So I guess Saddam Hussein found a smoking gun? Oh, wait, he’s only killing his own people.
Anyone that thinks we’ve lost the high ground to Hussein is climbing pretty far out on a limb.
Sulla,
Spare me the cheap rhetoric and give one reason not based on lies or deceit for a legal invasion of Iraq.
You won’t. Because there isn’t one.
As I said, you (collective) are living your lies. And getting mighty shrill about them too, as your own post and the very OP of this thread amply demonstrate.
PS-Make that SuaSponte in the above post.
Apologies for the mistake.