Schroeder seeks Bush's support for the Security Council

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Oh shucks. No way our way will get passed by the SC.

Where have you heard that before?

Are you really this stupid, or do you have no shame?

Neither. Though I did have fun seeing Drake pwned

(and yes Drake, you were pwned by your own standard, a cookie if you can guess why).

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Seriously though a reading of UN Charter doesn't seem to support the intervention in Kosovo as much as you'd like to think. Additionally in 1962 the International Court of Justice said that enforcement action is coercive action in the context of Chapter VII, which deals with threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. Now you could argue that the UN resolution 1199 found that there actually was a threat to peace but it would still be a nonstarter as NATO would still require UNSC authorization to lauch offensive action under Article 53.

I agree that the legality of the Kosovo war is questionable at best.

But even you have to admit that the rationale of humanitarian intervention carries more water than the notion of preventive war.

[MrFun]

You gotta give Drake some kind of visual motivation, GePap.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
But even you have to admit that the rationale of humanitarian intervention carries more water than the notion of preventive war.

There's wrong with the notion preventative action. It is a well founded doctrine in international law. See Caroline doctrine. However in the case of this thread both Kosovo and Iraq represent illegal violations of State sovereignty. I fail to see how a reasonable case can be made that one "carries more water" than the other.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Yeah, but you aren't one of 'em.

Sure I was.


And stop overcompensating.

[DinoDoc]

bump

[Drake Tungsten]

And just what, exactly, would this other international law be based on, in this instance, but the UN charter?

50 years of interpretation of the UN charter and various other international treaties and agreements?

Neither. Though I did have fun seeing Drake pwned

I think DD proved pretty convincingly that I was the correct one on this matter.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
And stop overcompensating.

You would be familiar with that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I think DD proved pretty convincingly that I was the correct one on this matter.

Except that by your "any statement made that is wrong means pwning" standard, you claimed that a strict reading on the UN Charter was NOT what international law was based on anymore. DD's answer is based purely on a strict reading of the UN Charter

Whoops, Drake got PWNED.

And the sadder bit: what DD quoted was in article 53, which, had you simply gone to the link I provided in post #1 on this issue and scrolled down after article 52, you would have seen it. BUt you were too lazy to even do that.. tsk, tsk, tsk.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Only nuclear powers should have permanent seats, and every nuclear power should have one.

Okay. Canada will be ready to claim its seat in 2-3 weeks.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Except that by your "any statement made that is wrong means pwning" standard, you claimed that a strict reading on the UN Charter was NOT what international law was based on anymore. DD's answer is based purely on a strict reading of the UN Charter

Whoops, Drake got PWNED.

Except I'm sure Drake's stance is that international law is a lot weaker than the UN charter, ergo, anything permitted under it is also permitted under international law. Whoops, GePap got PWNED.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Except I'm sure Drake's stance is that international law is a lot weaker than the UN charter, ergo, anything permitted under it is also permitted under international law. Whoops, GePap got PWNED.

Except that unless Drake is that much your *****, you can;t interpret his statements in any useful way to this particular argument.

That your "interpretation" is also wrong on what Drake was saying,being utterly out of context to that particulars under which he made his statement, seems to show be that to some extent the relationship is reciprical.

Now, is that sad, pathetic, or hillarious? I am unsure which.

[Kuciwalker]

Except that unless Drake is that much your *****, you can;t interpret his statements in any useful way to this particular argument.

I can, however, interpret his posting history to do so...

[Drake Tungsten]

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You would be familiar with that.

Yes, you've provided us with plenty of examples.