Originally posted by Q5echo
no shit Sherlock but it is not binding statute. it's a precedent that had a profound effect on shaping modern International law. what happened in Nuremburg, Germany 1946 is only small part in the incoherent argument youre trying to make
IT IS BINDING. NO COUNTRY IS ALLOWED TO INITIATE A WAR OF AGGRESSION PERIOD.
quote:
no i don't. i just want ignorant kids to either take a deeper look into how history shapes the world and politics we live in or stfu and play video games and not get involved in politics at all.
Right, if my country decides to bomb the fuck out of some shithole third world country, I should be gung ho, or else I'm not patriotic enough...fuck off...
quote:
well i just asked asked you what the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was (the actual internationally binding statutes and not fucking Nuremburg ) but in your infinite wisdom seemed to think was pointless and refused to anwer.
Irrelevant question. You made no point. Do you know what the UN Charter is smart one?
quote:
two things. 1) Operation Iraqi Freedom was not unilateral, 2) in order to make definitive statements about aggression you have to know the current laws applicable.
Operation Iraqi Freedom WAS unilateral. The US asked for Security Council approval, and was promptly denied that approval. I don't need a court order to know when something wrong like a war of aggression has been committed. The war was unjustified, immoral, and just plain stupid.
quote:
i'm fine with my ad hominems making me look stupid. in your case it's the content of what you say that makes you look stupid
Riiight. But you seem to only be able to counter with ad hominems. Amusing..
___________________
Feb-23-2009 04:51
Q5echo
asymetrical scepticism
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Dallas
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
IT IS BINDING. NO COUNTRY IS ALLOWED TO INITIATE A WAR OF AGGRESSION PERIOD.
tell me this, how can military tribunal have jurisdiction over anything civilian?
...and if it is binding statute, do you have the statute number?
Feb-23-2009 05:07
Krypton
83.798 g/6.022x10^23
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
tell me this, how can military tribunal have jurisdiction over anything civilian?
...and if it is binding statute, do you have the statute number?
Q, initiating a war of aggression is wrong, has been prosecuted before, and laid out in the UN Charter, is the abolition of such wars. I don't get why you are so adamantly defending such abhorrent actions. War is hell. Unjustified war is the worst of the worst. If all the people killed and made refugees doesn't shock, I'd have to think you like war.
___________________
Feb-23-2009 05:12
Q5echo
asymetrical scepticism
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Dallas
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Q, initiating a war of aggression is wrong, has been prosecuted before, and laid out in the UN Charter, is the abolition of such wars. I don't get why you are so adamantly defending such abhorrent actions. War is hell. Unjustified war is the worst of the worst. If all the people killed and made refugees doesn't shock, I'd have to think you like war.
Alright we'll try another question. If Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war of aggression, what was our motive?
Feb-23-2009 06:12
pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter's chief minion
Registered: Jul 2002
Location:
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
Alright we'll try another question. If Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war of aggression, what was our motive?
oh come on, you dont need a motive for a war of aggression. you might just not like the colour of the guy on the other part of the map
___________________
Feb-23-2009 06:22
Krypton
83.798 g/6.022x10^23
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
Alright we'll try another question. If Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war of aggression, what was our motive?
The motive is outlined in the Project for a New American Century.
___________________
Feb-23-2009 06:30
Q5echo
asymetrical scepticism
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Dallas
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
The motive is outlined in the Project for a New American Century.
Do you have a link? Haha, just kidding
No srsly, I limit myself to one full page of hijacking so take from this absurd convo what you will.
I'll leave you with one last question. The PNAC statement of principles covers a host of things. Can you be more specific?
Feb-23-2009 06:48
pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter's chief minion
Registered: Jul 2002
Location:
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
I hate brown people
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
The PNAC statement of principles covers a host of things. Can you be more specific?
i believe it was a document the schemers of 911 published to cryptically reveal all their plans ahead of time.
___________________
Feb-23-2009 06:51
Q5echo
asymetrical scepticism
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Dallas
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh come on, you dont need a motive for a war of aggression. you might just not like the colour of the guy on the other part of the map
I hate brown people
Feb-23-2009 06:52
Krypton
83.798 g/6.022x10^23
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
Do you have a link? Haha, just kidding
No srsly, I limit myself to one full page of hijacking so take from this absurd convo what you will.
I think Guantanamo certainly does tie in to this "war on terror", which the invasion of Iraq was claimed to be a part of. The torture committed at Guantanamo occurred also in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, we'r talking about the Bush Administration's war crimes, or in your opinion, lack thereof, so this debate we'r having is completely relevant. Not hijacking...
quote:
I'll leave you with one last question. The PNAC statement of principles covers a host of things. Can you be more specific?
Statement on Post-War Iraq
March 19, 2003
The removal of the present Iraqi regime from power will lay the foundation for achieving three vital goals: disarming Iraq of all its weapons of mass destruction stocks and production capabilities; establishing a peaceful, stable, democratic government in Iraq; and contributing to the democratic development of the wider Middle East.
1. Disarming Iraq of all its weapons of mass destruction stock and production capabilities.
Numerous sources, both inside our intelligence agencies, and outside have documented evidence that the Bush Administration was told of the lack of credible intelligence regarding supposed WMDs, or lack thereof, but the Administration had already made up their minds. They told their people, "find the intelligence".
2. Establishing a peaceful, stable, democratic government in Iraq.
Can we call this...democratic imperialism? Imagine a world in which any country decided to invade another to establish some ideal form of government, friendly not to the native nation, but to that of the occupying power. You know, the UN was established for a reason...
3. Contributing to the democratic development of the wider Middle East.
Something comes to mind...Hmm...I wonder what it is...
) but in your infinite wisdom seemed to think was pointless and refused to anwer. 
