Anti-war protesters, answer me this!

[Worthingtons]

'Originally posted by Oerdin
Let's face it. 90%+ of them are just stupid me to political leftists. They haven't sat down and seriously thought about the implications of their position and I doubt they really want to.
'
Oerdin is right, a lot wil be silly leftists. The problem is Lefties dont think things through, they never do. They'll be the same one's rioting if Saddam gets and uses nukes , for bush to go

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why? What's it to you? What has Hussein done that effects you personally or anyone you know? Aside from the opportunity of a few thousand ultra-rich, exactly whose interests benefit from this policy you advocate?

By making an example of people like Saddam the world's other dictators will be more likely to tow the line. In the long run that means fewer wars. Fewer wars means lower taxes, or atleast more of the tax money going to programs I like, and it also means fewer of my friends becoming soldiers since we've detered other conflicts.

Of course there is also the fact that in the long run peace provides for greater economic growth then war (which only provides a short boost to growth combined with the possibility of wide spread distruction a la WW2). Thus a policy which reinforces the current status quo and deters future wars is more benificial to me personally then to avoid conflict and possibely incite future acts of aggression.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anti-war protesters, answer me this!

Originally posted by Oerdin
You may not like the U.S. being the world's policeman but it is a role which someone in this world needs to play. Sure, it means the U.S. gets a larger say in how offending countries are dealt with but the Pax American is fairly benevolent.

The US defines who is or isn't an offending country. In all honestey, the US is one of the biggest violators of of interntional peace and international law. It's just that since our government is the "watchman" no one can do anything about it.

In point of fact, the US doesn't give a damn about international law or peace. It only cares about the interests of its economic (and thus political) elites. Any action which enhances their power (economic and/or political) will be undertaken. Those which do not enhance it will be left to its own devices.

If the US is the world's policeman, an analogy would be as if LAs police department only protected the interests of Beverly Hills.

[cia]

Here's my question. Why should the U.S. give a whit about international law. It didn't get our plane back from the Chinese, our soldiers back from the first Gulf War, or really do anything for our trade or security which we couldn't do for ourselves. I've always hated the sandbox mentality and the politics of consensus which go along with it. Ten idiots who agree do not outnumber on intelligent person with the correct answer.

[chequita guevara]

If the US shouldn't care about international law then why should it try to force others to obey it? Either the US obeys it also or the US shouldn't force others to obey it.

[cia]

Che, the US forces people to obey IT"S law, which is whatever the current administration says it is. Occasionally international law and self-intrest coincide, other times not.

[chequita guevara]

[Sava]

Lefties, contrary to somes' belief, simply just see through the BS.

[Dinner]

Can someone please give me a clear example of the U.S. violating long standing (and thus incontrivertable) international law without a VERY good reason?

I'd like to hear more then "we wanted to make Kyoto international law but the U.S. blocked it". Determining what will become future law and what is law are two different subjects.

[Sava]

Does the ABM treaty count? Or how about the US never signing the Geneva conventions treaty on the ban of chemical/biological warfare? Or how about the US's refusal to sign the ban on the anti-personal dumb-land-mines treaty?

I'm not sure if this violates law, but the US is the signal biggest arms dealer in the world... selling arms and munitions to both sides of conflicts around the world...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sava
Does the ABM treaty count? Or how about the US never signing the Geneva conventions treaty on the ban of chemical/biological warfare? Or how about the US's refusal to sign the ban on the anti-personal dumb-land-mines treaty?

I'm not sure if this violates law, but the US is the signal biggest arms dealer in the world... selling arms and munitions to both sides of conflicts around the world...

Nope, none of those violate any international laws. The ABM, like most modern treaties, has a "self-abrogation" clause where it is explicitely spelled out what each party must do in order to terminate the treaty. People might disagree about how wise Bush was to use the abrogation clause but the fact remains it is not a violation of international law.

Refusing to sign the land mine ban or refusing to give up chemical & biological weapons falls under the "blocked treaties which some people would have liked to have seen become international law" and is in no way a violation of international law.

[Sava]

Personally, I think there are certain moral and ethical guidelines that should be adhered to rather than a piece of paper. Regardless of whether or not it was against the law, I still wouldn't murder anyone.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Can someone please give me a clear example of the U.S. violating long standing (and thus incontrivertable) international law without a VERY good reason?

The war against Nicaragua and specifically the mining of one of their harbors. The war against Yugoslavia. The bombing of Sudan. The invasion of Grenada. The invasion of Panama. The embargo against Cuba. And that's just the last twenty years.

[cia]

Wasn't the war in Yugoslavia at the UN's request? And since when is an national embargo illegal?

[Sava]

It was at NATO's request...