If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   This might be a good time to point out that pre-emptive wars are expressively forbidden by international law   (latimes.com) divider line 148
    More: Scary, international laws, United States, guerrilla war, wars, foreign policy, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

4226 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Sep 2012 at 11:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



148 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-17 12:13:28 PM

Rich Cream: KellyX: Rich Cream: KellyX: beta_plus: Preemptive wars are completely legal when Democrats wage them.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x315]

Funny since that was authorized by the United Nations


How does that make it legal?

I dunno, Authorized by the world body that represents almost all nations on the planet with the majority agreeing on the actions and none of the permanent members with veto power vetoing it? I reckon that made it legal.


If it's illegal it's illegal, whether or not the people perpetrating the crime believe otherwise. How the hell does that work?


Shut the fark up Donny, you're out of your element.
 
2012-09-17 12:13:39 PM
The GOP is fighting to maintain/increase DoD spending and at the same time advocating a foreign policy to intentionally piss off any nation they can.

/They really are trying to repeat Bush Jr.'s legacy.
 
2012-09-17 12:14:28 PM

Rich Cream: KellyX: Rich Cream: KellyX: beta_plus: Preemptive wars are completely legal when Democrats wage them.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x315]

Funny since that was authorized by the United Nations


How does that make it legal?

I dunno, Authorized by the world body that represents almost all nations on the planet with the majority agreeing on the actions and none of the permanent members with veto power vetoing it? I reckon that made it legal.


If it's illegal it's illegal, whether or not the people perpetrating the crime believe otherwise. How the hell does that work?


Then I guess we really have nothing to discuss. So let's just end the conversation because you're right, I'm wrong, and there is no middle ground to debate.

I imagine since the United Nations being decided on by the world governments to issue orders and such they all agree to follow, that that then makes it the law of the world at the time. Isn't that how it usually works, those in power make the laws, until such time as someone else decides those laws are illegal?
 
2012-09-17 12:14:43 PM

MooseUpNorth: Satanic_Hamster: Reinstall Qaddafi

I suppose the details of how he means to accomplish this are something we're not allowed to ask about?


He needs to borrow the keys to Obama's time machine for that one. It's going to be a tough ask.
 
2012-09-17 12:15:55 PM

Dwight_Yeast: MooseUpNorth: Satanic_Hamster: Reinstall Qaddafi

I suppose the details of how he means to accomplish this are something we're not allowed to ask about?

He needs to borrow the keys to Obama's time machine for that one. It's going to be a tough ask.


That's socialism.
 
2012-09-17 12:19:03 PM

Rich Cream: Baby Face Fister: When the international community endorses it it sounds pretty damn legal to me.


Not sure if serious but we're supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of men. This is corruption.


Not sure if serious either. Men make the laws it's up to men to enforce such laws for the greater good of humanity. We should thank our lucky stars that GWB didn't get us all blown to hell and now the GOP wants to put this war monger in charge so he and his buddies can make a few bucks?
 
2012-09-17 12:19:05 PM

vernonFL: [bmj2k.files.wordpress.com image 300x372]

R.I.P Popeye Doyle


Oh please don't make me block you. Please no...

/HATES that STUPID RIP MEME
 
2012-09-17 12:19:15 PM

Dogfacedgod: Shut the fark up Donny, you're out of your element.


Can a group of politicians rob a bank if they decide to agree it's not illegal to do so?


KellyX: Isn't that how it usually works, those in power make the laws, until such time as someone else decides those laws are illegal?


Not arbitrarily. They didn't vote to change the law, they voted to ignore it, or consider it moot "in this case".
 
2012-09-17 12:19:52 PM

MooseUpNorth: Satanic_Hamster: Reinstall Qaddafi

I suppose the details of how he means to accomplish this are something we're not allowed to ask about?


Just squish him onto a big golden throne and throw some glitter on him. No one will be able to tell the difference. He'll just be quieter than usual.
 
2012-09-17 12:19:56 PM

EyeballKid: If only there were some way Obama could have reminded people of that when he came into office...if only there had been some domestic war criminals in the White House prior...oh, but what would have been the odds of that happening?


The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers violated the War Powers Act. (Libya)
 
2012-09-17 12:21:20 PM

CheetahOlivetti: Just squish him onto a big golden throne and throw some glitter on him. No one will be able to tell the difference. He'll just be quieter than usual.


Might need a little Old Spice[tm], too.
 
2012-09-17 12:21:27 PM

Rich Cream: KellyX: beta_plus: Preemptive wars are completely legal when Democrats wage them.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x315]

Funny since that was authorized by the United Nations


How does that make it legal?


Perhaps because the law that makes it internationally illegal is the treaty that signs a nation into the UN?

Basically its illegal UNLESS the UN decides to do it.
 
2012-09-17 12:21:27 PM

Rich Cream: Dogfacedgod: Shut the fark up Donny, you're out of your element.

Can a group of politicians rob a bank if they decide to agree it's not illegal to do so?


If they pass a law making it legal, absolutely.
 
2012-09-17 12:24:52 PM

Rich Cream: KellyX: Rich Cream: KellyX: beta_plus: Preemptive wars are completely legal when Democrats wage them.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x315]

Funny since that was authorized by the United Nations


How does that make it legal?

I dunno, Authorized by the world body that represents almost all nations on the planet with the majority agreeing on the actions and none of the permanent members with veto power vetoing it? I reckon that made it legal.


If it's illegal it's illegal, whether or not the people perpetrating the crime believe otherwise. How the hell does that work?


http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/
 
2012-09-17 12:25:48 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Perhaps because the law that makes it internationally illegal is the treaty that signs a nation into the UN?

Basically its illegal UNLESS the UN decides to do it.



Basically it isn't illegal for anyone who isn't a signatory to the UN's charter. It's especially illegal when the body that created the law breaks it.

Philip Francis Queeg: If they pass a law making it legal, absolutely.


That's my point. They didn't change the law, they decide when to obey and when not to obey. That means there is no point to having any laws at all if they can be ignored at whim.

/I can't believe I'm on this side of "obeying the law" argument. Wow.
 
2012-09-17 12:26:16 PM
Subby, it's not that republicans are unaware that preemptive wars are illegal; it's just that they can't resist the idea of killing brown people.
 
2012-09-17 12:26:31 PM

msimon8: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/



Basically it isn't illegal for anyone who isn't a signatory to the UN's charter. It's especially illegal when the body that created the law breaks it.
 
2012-09-17 12:26:54 PM
Awww, subby is so cute
 
2012-09-17 12:27:23 PM

armoredbulldozer: The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers violated the War Powers Act. (Libya)


Are you posting this line every day as a test to see if anybody notices or are you off your meds and don't remember doing this yesterday? I'm curious because it sounds like you're quoting something but out of context it doesn't make sense.
 
2012-09-17 12:28:46 PM
We do need another war. Just not the kind of war everyone is always harping on about.

www.infoshop.org
 
2012-09-17 12:31:31 PM

Epoch_Zero: Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: "International Law" is only as powerful as the "International Police" willing and capable of enforcing it. When the police are outgunned by the criminals, there is no law

When the Police are the criminals there is no law. Just empire.

When the empire is law, deals are altered.


Empire, you say . . . .

jameswood.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-17 12:34:56 PM
No problem we'll have a pre-emptive police action instead. Ta Da!
 
2012-09-17 12:39:10 PM

Baby Face Fister: We should thank our lucky stars that GWB didn't get us all blown to hell



Made me dig deep into the archive.
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 12:40:03 PM
No problem subby, we'll just launch a "pre-emptive overseas contingency operation." problem solved or dare I say "mission accomplished?"
 
2012-09-17 12:42:13 PM

Rich Cream: msimon8: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/


Basically it isn't illegal for anyone who isn't a signatory to the UN's charter. It's especially illegal when the body that created the law breaks it.


God damn you are an ignoramus...

Aaaaaaand you're blocked.
 
2012-09-17 12:44:09 PM

MooseUpNorth: Satanic_Hamster: Reinstall Qaddafi

I suppose the details of how he means to accomplish this are something we're not allowed to ask about?


Romney must have Qaddafi's nose stashed somewhere.
 
2012-09-17 12:44:49 PM

Rich Cream: msimon8: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/


Basically it isn't illegal for anyone who isn't a signatory to the UN's charter. It's especially illegal when the body that created the law breaks it.


For UN states parties, it's unlawful to engage in international armed conflict without UN approval. In Libya there was UN approval.
 
2012-09-17 12:45:16 PM

Rich Cream: KellyX: beta_plus: Preemptive wars are completely legal when Democrats wage them.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x315]

Funny since that was authorized by the United Nations


How does that make it legal?


Because it wasn't a pre-emptive war. It was an multinational sanctioned defense/assistance in an internal armed conflict.
 
2012-09-17 12:48:40 PM

Epoch_Zero: Philip Francis Queeg: Lost Thought 00: "International Law" is only as powerful as the "International Police" willing and capable of enforcing it. When the police are outgunned by the criminals, there is no law

When the Police are the criminals there is no law. Just empire.

When the empire is law, deals are altered.


Pray they are not altered further.
 
2012-09-17 12:49:33 PM
As anti-War as the Republicans seem lately, can we just start calling them hippies?
 
2012-09-17 12:52:55 PM
Having promised to "cleanse" Libya house-by-house the US could have let Qaddafi go ahead and exterminate hundreds of thousands of Libyan citizens through inaction (Republicans were screaming for the US to intervene).
Making the choice to intervene with the consent of the UN, thus bringing world consensus into the mix, that genocide was averted (Republicans were screaming about "Obama's illegal war" at the time).
Bottom line: The Republicans are not helping and nothing Obama does will make them happy.
 
2012-09-17 12:54:16 PM

brianbankerus: Aaaaaaand you're blocked.


Hear that sound? It's the sound of a mind closing.

Ignore lists are for little girls who are being harassed by obnoxious people. Not for putting on blinders so you won't see things that displease you, or other points of view, regardless of validity.

/I am flattered tho.


msimon8: For UN states parties, it's unlawful to engage in international armed conflict without UN approval. In Libya there was UN approval.


Ok, they wrote in a loophole for whatever purposes they deem worthwhile. It was written in preemptively.


Mi-5: Because it wasn't a pre-emptive war. It was an multinational sanctioned defense/assistance in an internal armed conflict.


Ok ok, "in this case".
 
2012-09-17 12:57:04 PM

KellyX: As anti-War as the Republicans seem lately, can we just start calling them hippies?


Republicans are only anti-war when they may have some of their own skin in the game and not just some poor cannon/campaign fodder they'll never see above ground (see: George W. Bush's successful campaign to the keep the Viet Cong out of Alabama, Mitt Romney's sons deciding working on their dad's failed campaigns was just as much "serving their country" as what those guys in Iraq and Afghanistan were doing; Mitt Romney's excursion to France to promote both the Mormon Church and the Vietam War rather than fight in the Vietnam War, Dick's 5 deferments). I believe the term you're looking for is "scared little pussies." That's what they are.
 
2012-09-17 01:02:20 PM
Without all those Job Creators in government who provided those military jobs, the South would be devoid of people.
 
2012-09-17 01:04:37 PM

Rich Cream: msimon8: For UN states parties, it's unlawful to engage in international armed conflict without UN approval. In Libya there was UN approval.

Ok, they wrote in a loophole for whatever purposes they deem worthwhile. It was written in preemptively.


It's the entire raison d'être for the UN, and the League of Nations before it. So one state can't go in and start wars as they please purpose of gaining territories. They wanted an international agreement for any international intervention. The UN has always acknowledged the necessity of armed conflict in certain situations.
 
2012-09-17 01:07:17 PM

Generation_D: TFA seems determined to do the "fair and balanced" dance, even though one side wants to start war with Iran and one does not.


[citation needed] on some side not wanting war wit Iran.
 
2012-09-17 01:09:41 PM
The emperor of Earth will not let this stand!
 
2012-09-17 01:10:15 PM

msimon8: It's the entire raison d'être for the UN, and the League of Nations before it. So one state can't go in and start wars as they please purpose of gaining territories. They wanted an international agreement for any international intervention. The UN has always acknowledged the necessity of armed conflict in certain situations.



I get a little crazy when I see the term "pre-emptive war". And then I conflated that with the Libya thing. And then somehow I was arguing for law and order. I don't know. It all happened so fast. It was a blur.
 
2012-09-17 01:10:34 PM

Rich Cream: msimon8: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/


Basically it isn't illegal for anyone who isn't a signatory to the UN's charter. It's especially illegal when the body that created the law breaks it.


Try reading rticle 42.
 
2012-09-17 01:11:54 PM

Rich Cream: I get a little crazy when I see the term "pre-emptive war". And then I conflated that with the Libya thing. And then somehow I was arguing for law and order. I don't know. It all happened so fast. It was a blur.


Need a hug?
 
2012-09-17 01:18:10 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Generation_D: TFA seems determined to do the "fair and balanced" dance, even though one side wants to start war with Iran and one does not.

[citation needed] on some side not wanting war wit Iran.


Not a "side", per se, but how about majorities of polled citizens, both here and in Israel?
 
2012-09-17 01:18:20 PM

timujin: beta_plus: Preemptive wars are completely legal when Democrats wage them.

When did we go to war with Libya? Here I thought we merely supported the UN resolution to protect the Libyan citizens, support that didn't require we put a single boot on the ground. Unlike, say, those "police actions" in the mid-20th... interesting definition for war, you have there.


Protecting the citizens from the horror of having water treatment plants and the waking nightmare of not facing genocide.
 
2012-09-17 01:21:01 PM

give me doughnuts: Rich Cream: msimon8: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/


Basically it isn't illegal for anyone who isn't a signatory to the UN's charter. It's especially illegal when the body that created the law breaks it.

Try reading rticle 42.



Intervention does not equal pre-emption.

Got it. 

/on a roll
 
2012-09-17 01:24:17 PM
herpa derpa doo!!!!
 
2012-09-17 01:24:49 PM

Rich Cream: msimon8: It's the entire raison d'être for the UN, and the League of Nations before it. So one state can't go in and start wars as they please purpose of gaining territories. They wanted an international agreement for any international intervention. The UN has always acknowledged the necessity of armed conflict in certain situations.


I get a little crazy when I see the term "pre-emptive war". And then I conflated that with the Libya thing. And then somehow I was arguing for law and order. I don't know. It all happened so fast. It was a blur.


That'll happen. I think the problem lies in everybody throwing around of the term "preemptive war." It's not a legal term of art and doesn't really have any relevance in the discussion of what is and isn't legal under international law. However, preemptive wars are generally frowned upon by the UN. Peacekeeping operations, on the other hand, they love those. Libya was a peacekeeping operation.
 
2012-09-17 01:33:20 PM
Gadhafi vowed in a televised speech to cling to power with "the last drop of blood."

The erratic 69-year-old leader lashed out at enemies far and wide, accusing the United States, Britain, Italy of secretly bankrolling the drug-addled "rats and mercenaries" of the uprising. He pledged to "cleanse Libya house by house" or "die here as martyr" trying.
 
2012-09-17 01:33:35 PM

msimon8: Rich Cream: msimon8: It's the entire raison d'être for the UN, and the League of Nations before it. So one state can't go in and start wars as they please purpose of gaining territories. They wanted an international agreement for any international intervention. The UN has always acknowledged the necessity of armed conflict in certain situations.


I get a little crazy when I see the term "pre-emptive war". And then I conflated that with the Libya thing. And then somehow I was arguing for law and order. I don't know. It all happened so fast. It was a blur.

That'll happen. I think the problem lies in everybody throwing around of the term "preemptive war." It's not a legal term of art and doesn't really have any relevance in the discussion of what is and isn't legal under international law. However, preemptive wars are generally frowned upon by the UN. Peacekeeping operations, on the other hand, they love those. Libya was a peacekeeping operation.


It stopped being a peacekeeping operation about 36 hours in when the transitional council declined a ceasefire and NATO didn't start bombing them(or even cease helping them).
 
2012-09-17 01:34:13 PM

Rich Cream: Intervention does not equal pre-emption.


Intervention: preventing Group A from genociding Group B (and vice-versa; we'd also allow "preventing Groups A & B from genociding Groups C & D". Correct for the number of antagonizing/victimized groups as appropriate). (cf. US/Libya, ca 2012)
Pre-emption: Group A attacks Group B to prevent Group B from attacking Group A first. (cf US/Iraq, ca 2003)

I thought this was basic English. Am I wrong?
 
2012-09-17 01:35:57 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: timujin: beta_plus: Preemptive wars are completely legal when Democrats wage them.

When did we go to war with Libya? Here I thought we merely supported the UN resolution to protect the Libyan citizens, support that didn't require we put a single boot on the ground. Unlike, say, those "police actions" in the mid-20th... interesting definition for war, you have there.

Protecting the citizens from the horror of having water treatment plants and the waking nightmare of not facing genocide.


and, again, I thought it was protecting citizens from the horror of having airstrikes directed against them and the waking nightmare of having troops invading their homes and killing them... still, your comment doesn't address the question of whether this was either "pre-emptive" or "war".
 
2012-09-17 01:38:01 PM
Shoot first!

Then aim...
 
Displayed 50 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report