Way to go Spain - aka The results of giving in to terrorist demands

[Ned]

China marching in without us?

The problem, with China, of course, is that it is not democratic and one would not expect China to install a democratic government. But if Germany had done it without the US, OK.

[Harovan]

I seem to have failed to remember, that 1441 demanded the installation of a democratic government. Thanks for the heads up.

With other words, a Chinese (or Indian, or Russian, or Syrian, or whatever) intervention would have been just as legitimate as the US one.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The Kosovo war was illegal as well, true. But as far as I recall, it was the US who led him, with the Europeans following unwilling and halfhearted. But that doesn't make their case more just in any way.

You know, Sir Ralph, I find the double-standard of the Iraq war opponents stunning. With Kosovo, Clinton did not even go through the motions of seeking UN approval. Ditto Congress. He just went to war on his own motion.

Bush got both UN 1441 and Congressional approval. He even tried to get a second resolution through the UNSC to give Saddam one more last chance to satisfy the French. Bush went out of his way to satisfy the legal norms in a case where our own national interests were at stake.

Clinton openly spat on Congress and the UN and HE is the hero while Bush the person who most respected the UN and Congress is villified?

All this goes to show is that the left, US or Europe, cannot be taken seriously on these topics.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I seem to have failed to remember, that 1441 demanded the installation of a democratic government. Thanks for the heads up.

With other words, a Chinese (or Indian, or Russian, or Syrian, or whatever) intervention would have been just as legitimate as the US one.

As I said, it depends on whether the actor was a democratic nation.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Ned
You know, Sir Ralph, I find the double-standard of the Iraq war opponents stunning. With Kosovo, Clinton did not even go through the motions of seeking UN approval. Ditto Congress. He just went to war on his own motion.

Bush got both UN 1441 and Congressional approval.

UN approval is it, what counts. Your Congress has no weight whatsoever on the international scene.

About double standard, did you read my above post, where I condemn the Kosovo war as just as wrong as the Iraq war? Where is the double standard?

He even tried to get a second resolution through the UNSC to give Saddam one more last chance to satisfy the French. Bush went out of his way to satisfy the legal norms in a case where our own national interests were at stake.

He didn't get the second resolution and went to war anyway.

Clinton openly spat on Congress and the UN and HE is the hero while Bush the person who most respected the UN and Congress is villified?

I highly disrespect Clinton for Kosovo.

All this goes to show is that the left, US or Europe, cannot be taken seriously on these topics.

No comment.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Where is the double standard?

In Europe at large.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Ned
As I said, it depends on whether the actor was a democratic nation.

You are a lawyer (at least I believe you are). You should know better, and I truly believe you do.

You try to justify the war with resolution 1441, which says nothing about installing a democratic government, or having the "consequences" dealt out by democratic nations only. China (in my hypothetical case) would have been just as legitimate to use 1441 as excuse for an intervention as the US. After all, the Chinese are a big nation and permanent member of the UNSC, jsut like the US.

[Ned]

Sir Ralph, I believe the US should only support UNSC actions, or actions taken by permanent member on behalf of the UN, that advance democracy or human rights, or that in some clear fashion restores order.

If China were to invade Iraq on behalf of the UNSC, I would be concerned because I do not trust China to bring democracy to Iraq. I rather think they would impose communism.

However, if China were to act in the Korean situation where there already was a pre-existing communist government, I would have lesser concerns due to the fact that Korea already was communist.

Back to 1441, I think the US and Britain, who were the major complaining parties wrt 1441, had full rights to enforce it without a second resolution.

[Harovan]

Your opinion. You are entitled to it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ned an international law question,

Its never been brought to international court, but the preceeding resolutions all of which were found to be in material breech all referred as did 1441 to previous resolutions. In several of these it allowed for member states to sever the state of cease fire that existed from Gulf War 1.

In your opinion, does the presence of a new resolution supercede and make void the preceeding resolutions or (as was the case with Saddam) does the fact that everyone of them being in material breach allow for use of penalties prescribed in any of the previous resolutions especially considering their continued reference in the following resolutions.

It was the case the Brits were making but were not comfortable bringing forward.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Your opinion. You are entitled to it.

Touche.

[Ned]

Ogie, a later resolution supersedes an earlier resolution if it expressly states that it does or if a provision of a later resolution is inconsistent with an earlier provision. Also it may be argued that earlier provisions may be effectively nullified by changes in the status quo that had persisted for some time without complaint or action. In property law this is known as adverse possession which can give a trespassor legal title to property.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Have you had the opportunity to read the resolutions. IIRC they did not expressly state they superceded previous ones (this might be a quirk tho' of UN by laws). Nor did their penalty provisions ever expressly rule out previous resolutions.

That then leaves the 12 year period of status quo which in essence was not status quo in light of continued rebukes in the form of ongoing resolutions.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by OliverFA
Terorism attack Spain ---> Spanish vote a government that do everything terrorist demands without even asking anything in return.

You missed the part in the middle where the Spanish government lied about who was responsible for the attack. Why is it that everyone who parrots out this "Spanish gave in to the terrorists!" line never takes this into account? Do you really think a government that so brazenly lies to its people over something as serious as a terrorist attack deserves to be reelected?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by optimus2861
Do you really think a government that so brazenly lies to its people over something as serious as a terrorist attack deserves to be reelected?

Lying is okay if it serves conservative ends because the masses are stupid and would elect leftists if they knew the truth.