Tweet
to add more fuel to the fire...
-
B♭3 -
If the report is correct I have to thank Mr Perle for ending the silly charade.
And for sparing me the annoyance of high school kiddies arguing international law.
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
If Perle is right, and the choice was between respecting international law or doing the moral thing, what would you have done? I'd have done the moral thing and the heck with international law!Originally posted by HershOstropoler
If the report is correct I have to thank Mr Perle for ending the silly charade.
And for sparing me the annoyance of high school kiddies arguing international law.
'There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.'"
G'Kar - from Babylon 5 episode "Z'ha'dum"Comment
-
Of course morality and law can conflict. And of yourse Perle is wrong about this war being right in any way. But what's your point?“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
My point is that people should stop being so uptight about international law. The important thing is to do the right thing, and the moral thing.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Of course morality and law can conflict. And of yourse Perle is wrong about this war being right in any way. But what's your point?
In this case, the war was the moral thing to do, so who cares that it may or may not have been legal?'There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.'"
G'Kar - from Babylon 5 episode "Z'ha'dum"Comment
-
(opens bag of popcorn.)B♭3Comment
-
The war was immoral and stupid, but that's not the issue. The relevance of international law isn't the issue either.Originally posted by The diplomat
My point is that people should stop being so uptight about international law. The important thing is to do the right thing, and the moral thing.
In this case, the war was the moral thing to do, so who cares that it may or may not have been legal?
I said all along that this war was a blatant violation of international law. And if the report is correct, then people may stop buying the silly pretenses and pseudo-arguments that have been floating around. How you judge that illegality on a moral level is another issue. Can your brain digest that?
Now pass me some popcorn, please.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
here you go.
watching the two sides just go at it is quite amusing.
B♭3Comment
-
Yowzers! Who needs enemies when your ally stabs you in the back?Originally posted by Q Cubed
this is going to go over well with the working class...
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/bus...les/timid70616
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."Comment
-
I call BS on that point.The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
Iraqis were being tortured and raped in front of their children or parents. Ending that kind of oppression is immoral?Originally posted by HershOstropoler
The war was immoral and stupid, but that's not the issue.
So, I guess it is moral to sit by and watch innocent people die???
Liberating innocent people from oppression is moral. The war did liberate them from Saddam's tyranny, therefore the war was moral.
So, the morality of the war is not the issue, and the relevance of international war is not the issue, then what is? What are we talking about?The relevance of international law isn't the issue either.
And I am trying to say to you, that if international law means neglecting innocent lives and letting them die under terrible oppression, then I will gladly violate international law.I said all along that this war was a blatant violation of international law.
Sure, we should honor international law, but not if it means being immoral and ignoring suffering.
In this case, the war was neccessary and moral, both to liberate Iraqis from terrible opression and to secure our national security.
If international law means allowing innocent people to die and to neglect your national security, then I don't want it!'There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.'"
G'Kar - from Babylon 5 episode "Z'ha'dum"Comment
-
Diplomat, you'd better get busy, there are a lot more countries you need to invade to stop that kind of thing.Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
We've got both kindsComment
-
And I told you that's another issue. My point is that the war was illegal. Make of that what you want. Now, why don't you continue this discussion with that wall over there? I'm getting bored.Originally posted by The diplomat
And I am trying to say to you, that if international law means neglecting innocent lives and letting them die under terrible oppression, then I will gladly violate international law.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Had Bush only adjusted the invasion timetable about a 1 month we would have had both morality and the UN on our side. However, I do question the national security as pect of your statement.Originally posted by The diplomat
If international law means allowing innocent people to die and to neglect your national security, then I don't want it!I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
Isn't breaking the law immoral?Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
We've got both kindsComment
Comment