Why do Americans have an irrational fear of international organizations?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I see the Imran Siddiqui project is going well.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel

Because (obviously) we don't think we're applying the parts that are crap

Not a valid argument, since parts are applied by you selectively, i.e. sometimes they're crap, and sometimes, they're jolly good. .

Read the rest of the sentence: or applying those parts in the ways we think make them crap. That is, we think we use those methods properly (obviously).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I see the Imran Siddiqui project is going well.

Now I have latte foam on my keyboard.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, legitmate fear of payback.

I believe that's what I was saying...

[Az]

Mostly, parts aren't wishy-washy enough. It's the entire documents' contradictive and vague manner that is what is problematic. ( This is coming from a staunch critic of Intl. law, btw )

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It doesn't happen to us because we don't let it happen to us.

Might makes right, eh?

Alright, how about even a significant attempt to do so against the U.S. by the international body?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because (obviously) we don't think we're applying the parts that are crap, or applying those parts in the ways we think make them crap.

No, that's incorrect. You can't say that the treaties and custom we are applying are valid and other valid treaties and custom are crap. If you agree that treaties and custom are valid sources of international law, you can't pick and choose (unless at the time of the treaty or any time of custom you issued a reservation). However, it isn't the case that the parts we deny are those where we've issued a reservation. We'll deny international law that we've affirmed in the past, because as Boris put it:

The U.S. here is objecting to the potential that it might be treated the same way it has treated other nations in the past, it seems to me.

--

I see the Imran Siddiqui project is going well.

Stop that you dirty commie.. get your tentacles away!

[Az]

uhh, I know how those "tentacle" scenarios always end. You may place "Communist Party of Apolyton" now, to save yourself the trouble.

[Az]

Might makes right, eh?

Isn't any worse than "what a bunch of intersted parties sez" makes right.

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Because (obviously) we don't think we're applying the parts that are crap, or applying those parts in the ways we think make them crap.

No, that's incorrect. You can't say that the treaties and custom we are applying are valid and other valid treaties and custom are crap. If you agree that treaties and custom are valid sources of international law, you can't pick and choose (unless at the time of the treaty or any time of custom you issued a reservation). However, it isn't the case that the parts we deny are those where we've issued a reservation. We'll deny international law that we've affirmed in the past, because as Boris put it:

The U.S. here is objecting to the potential that it might be treated the same way it has treated other nations in the past, it seems to me.

[/q]

So?

At the time we enforce international law, we feel that we are not enforcing it unjustly. Later, we may change our minds, but so what?

It's like complaining that Bush is inconsistent for lower taxes because FDR raised them

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Now I have latte foam on my keyboard.

Spoken like a true liberal, eh?

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

I know how those "tentacle" scenarios always end.

That's cause you watch an unhealthy amount of Japanese porn .

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Azazel

Might makes right, eh?

Isn't any worse than "what a bunch of intersted parties sez" makes right.

Yes, I think it is.

An analogy:

Might makes Right = Monarchy.

"bunch of interested parties sez" = Representative Democracy.

I'll take option #2, please. Faults? ****loads of 'em. Better than option #1? You betcha.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Might makes right, eh?

My point was that it's stupid to say "the danger has never come up, so there's nothing to fear and we can stop guarding against it" when the reason it has never come up is because we've guarded against it. It's like arguing that we should remove the fire codes because there have been almost no fires.

Alright, how about even a significant attempt to do so against the U.S. by the international body?

Since we've never let them in the first place, how would they attempt to?

[Az]

Originally posted by Arrian


Yes, I think so.

An analogy:

Might makes Right = Monarchy.

"bunch of interested parties sez" = Representative Democracy.

I'll take option #2, please. Faults? ****loads of 'em. Better than option #1? You betcha.

-Arrian

umm... last time I remembered, the parliament doesn't also act as jury.