| Re: Another One Bites the Dust [message #173650 is a reply to message #172929] |
Tue, 04 October 2005 20:12   |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Oh, I very much support the morality of this war and am pleased with the universal objectives of the conflict. I'm also very much anti-ignorance. What Hydra was saying was ignorance, and as such, I corrected him. You're the same way, albeit from what I see on these forums, you do it for fun. I do it because... I happen to think that a world that exists through truth will be functional and more enjoyable to live in. And while it isn't much, I would much rather practice what I preach as opposed to not.
The argument regarding the validity of international law as its objective stature I could restate again and again, and it would still go unaddressed (as it has) as you still play the circle game. So, while I could (and will if need be), I'll save my breath and refer you to the dozens of topics which it has been extrapolated and restated... clearly on deaf ears as it would seem. Of course, if you wish for me to do it again I have no problem doing so, because as stated above, I'm all for anti-ignorance.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another One Bites the Dust [message #173651 is a reply to message #172929] |
Tue, 04 October 2005 20:19 |
 |
Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 1
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
We had a cease fire in 1991. There is no "international law" about that. If hostilities are initiated again it's still fair game as the war is still going on.
I never said whether or not the law exists. I was questioning its power and why anyone should follow it. Even if it didn't exist, we've still had every right to attack since our rights are inherent in our system of government when Congress passed the declaration of war on Iraq. Whether or not the UN, you, I, or anyone else liked it is irrelevant.
| Quote: |
The argument regarding the validity of international law as its objective stature I could restate again and again, and it would still go unaddressed (as it has) as you still play the circle game. So, while I could (and will if need be), I'll save my breath and refer you to the dozens of topics which it has been extrapolated and restated... clearly on deaf ears as it would seem. Of course, if you wish for me to do it again I have no problem doing so, because as stated above, I'm all for anti-ignorance.
|
It takes two people to continue a circular argument. If you're going to consistently deny that the law isn't powerless and that it has some sort of validity in this world, you're just as guilty of circular reasoning as I am.
[Updated on: Tue, 04 October 2005 20:21] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Another One Bites the Dust [message #173652 is a reply to message #172929] |
Tue, 04 October 2005 20:36 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I've already stated that the international law that was created, signed, and ratified by all these nations including the United States was utterly powerless.
You're contending that that nullifies it's validity as a law. And it simply does not for the reason that your nation already AGREED to it being a law.
Yes, it is true that your own national laws often conflict with what the international law says you can and can't do, but that doesn't matter. National laws (as stated by the U.N. themselves) are all good and fine as long as they do not violate a given set of rules. That is the international law you agreed to. It ALSO says that your national laws do not hold legality when applied to other nations unless sanctioned by the international "Congress" if you were. You AGREED to this. The argument from this point, as you have already been a part of many times, is the fine combing of those damn resolutions. If you want to go into this again, fine. I'm game for it. But I predict we'll be right back at this argument again when you cannot rebuttal counter-evidence.
The existentialist reasoning here would support your argument saying that no such law that can be enforced is valid. But I'm not, nor would put much faith into that reasoning... ever. I could go through hundreds, THOUSANDS of analogies and logistics as to why this is a poor RATIONAL way of thinking, but I trust that you're smart enough to figure that out yourself.
What it dumbs down to is, you say you'll do somethings, and won't do some other things. Then you did some of those things you said you wouldn't do. In context, this is why the validation on anything EXCEPT a moral ground is flawed.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another One Bites the Dust [message #173667 is a reply to message #173651] |
Wed, 05 October 2005 07:42 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Tue, 04 October 2005 23:19 |
We had a cease fire in 1991. There is no "international law" about that. If hostilities are initiated again it's still fair game as the war is still going on.
I never said whether or not the law exists. I was questioning its power and why anyone should follow it. Even if it didn't exist, we've still had every right to attack since our rights are inherent in our system of government when Congress passed the declaration of war on Iraq. Whether or not the UN, you, I, or anyone else liked it is irrelevant.
It takes two people to continue a circular argument. If you're going to consistently deny that the law isn't powerless and that it has some sort of validity in this world, you're just as guilty of circular reasoning as I am.
|
One problem. International cease-fires are governed through international law. So, I ask again, does it exist, or doesn't it?
"Every right to attack" doesn't deal with the legality of the issue. It's just one country deciding what to do with another country. Heck, if Canada (for example) decided it wanted to declare war on the states, we could do so simply by the governmet saying so, and as far as we're concerned it would be ok. That still doesn't mean that it's legal or not.
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
