Uh-uh, chuck-o. The suggestion was we ALL leave AT ONCE. I’m not quitting and leaving the rest of you guys to stay and be obnoxious without me. We all link arms and walk TOGETHER to the admissions office and quit TOGETHER.
Which would make this a Mexican Standoff, I suppose, but it’s for the good of the board.
Thank you for furthering my point. So much for the “moral highground” I hear so much about with regards to US actions.
Especially in a willful invasion that remains shady at best and downright illegal to a great many of us.
50 our of 50 leaves little room for arguing that the “US did everything in its power to avoid killing civilians.” We can however, conclude that ‘essential targets’ are obviously much more important than ‘collateral damage’ in the Battle of Euphemisms.
QED
While I am whole heartedly against the current US hostile actions, I am curious as to what basis anyone would have to believe it is in some way illegal. Though I despise the current administration, and its puppet Bush, I recognize that like it or not our constitution grants him the power he is exercising. I disagree with and dislike the administration but I have to ask: What law do you suggest he is violating? (NB US Law only, since there is no obligation for the US to recognize any other authority, given that our Constitution says “This Constitution is the supreme law of this Land”)
You have officially surrendered all credibility.
Oh, really? What other authority do you suggest that the US is required to recognize?
askeptic
You’re welcome to do a search as the topic of the legality of the invasion has been discussed at lenght here.
Obviously, the pro-war faction will cite any number of what they consider legal loopholes that grant said invasion legitimacy under the US Constitution. Although I am definately NAL, and further, not a US citizen either, I am/was under the impression that treaties ratified by the US become part of the Law of the Land. Be that as it may, what there’s little doubt of is that the US blatantly broke international law as defined and agreed to with the United Nations.
At any rate, the following site gives you a number of legal views from all sides of the spectrum:
’
You should believe me (though you don’t have to) when I say I am very familiar with many of the arguments concerning international “LAW”. And I am disgusted with the present course that the US is taking. But this country is governed ultimately by our constitution, which grants the President the power to enter into treaties, and the senate the power to ratify them. Nowhere does it require that those treaties cannot be disregarded if the President so chooses. Treaties are agreements between equals, there is no authority or law which can enforce them.
Dinsdale is a guest and may he remain so until April 19th and then just fade into the sunset.
And you should avail yourself of the multitude of links I provided. They have all been written by lawyers – and in some cases, Constitutional lawyers.
For instance, this is what they say regarding the US Constitution and treaties entered into:
Do you know better?
Yes.
Care to elaborate on that, preferably after you have actually read Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution?
Sure I would elaborate, if someone asks without dumbass insults.
And the insult in Eva Luna’s post would be…?
Look, man, it’s like this. International law is law. Our courts accept it as such. Our people accept it as such. YOU accept it as such, every time you post a letter to somebody outside the US and expect it to reach the recipient.
You’re right that nobody can always enforce international law. However, your country (which also happens to be mine) makes a big fucking stink about those who violate it, which means (read this part carefully- I don’t want you to get lost) it also has to abide by it.
Unless you’re of the “might makes right” persuasion, you pretty much have to accept international law as a framework for international relations. If you are, you may as well stick to writing letters to Congress asking them to send a gunboat into Cuba.
Think I’m going to use this my first post as Charter Member being obnoxious.
Funny how liberals all of a sudden goes all warm and moist in the knickers over lawyers. You know as well as I do that the only reason all these twerps are chanting “International Law” like they get paid by the syllable is that in this particular instance they perceive the “Law” to be on their side. While had in been otherwise, as in Kosovo, the same people would have stood by the principle: law is law and morals are morals and never shall the twine meet.
Screw International Law and let the lawyers bicker while we go do the right thing. You might not think Iraq was the right thing, but I tell you, you get no brownies from me if you try to argue from some obscure collection of articles and paragraphs.
Not that I think Dinsdale should be banned or anything (well perhaps stoned, but only if I get to throw the first stone). On the other hand I don’t think involving your nephew or other such personal arguments is particular constructive. In any case if he doesn’t want to be shot at he should have chosen to become baker not soldier.
International Law; the last refuge of the bleeding heard liberal mind.
Well, if you note my location, it would be a struggle to locate a polling location. 
Regards
Testy
Thanks for your opinion. As I previously pointed out, I don’t really have anything against Kerry, I simply wanted to point out to Dinsdale what an idiot he made his own side look like.
Regards
Testy
Obscure collection of articles and paragraphs? You could just as easily describe the United States Constitution using those words. Or does “obscure” in your language just mean “something i don’t understand”? In case you don’t remember, the US Constitution is a couple of centuries old, while the UN Charter was signed by the United States barely half a century ago. Which of these is more “obscure”?
But that’s not even the point. You blame “liberals” for caring about international law. Well, how about we put it in terms that a conservative can understand? The United States signed what was effectively a contract, agreeing to become a member of the United Nations, and pledging itself to obey the Charter of that organization. A contract, like a treaty, is generally a document entered into by consenting parties, and that binds those parties to the conditions ennumerated therein.
Of course, the United States is the biggest bully on the block, and no-one else has the power to force it to live up to its obligations. But that doesn’t mean the obligations don’t exist.
But we don’t HAVE TO honor contracts when we find them inconvenient–that’s the basis of the bankruptcy industry* as advertised on UHF TV.
The ony difference I see with your prior posts is that you’re now paying to be obnoxious.
Dinsdale, you really are a fucking stupid asshole.
Bullshit. This is a lie.
You have already admitted that you knew that “reaction to your post would be extreme.” You deliberately wrote a tolling post to get a reaction from other posters. The result was exactly what you intended.
Bullshit. Another lie.
Wishing for the deaths of US soldiers != questioning the merits of various casualty levels.
Your comparison to religious arguments and critisism of police are equally stupid and offensive.
These comparisons would only make sense if people were regularly wishing for the deaths of Christians or policemen in GD and not being flamed for it.
You suck. Perhaps it is the same basic lack of logical concepts shown here that leads you to wish for soldiers’ death just to back up your political views. I don’t know and I don’t care what is broken in your mind. All I know is that you should go fuck yourself.