Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (88371)	3/31/2003 3:30:43 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

KC, Not legally justified - like Kosovo. Then goes on to list the only ways in which war can be justified, but fails to note that the reasons specified do not and did not exist for Kosovo or any other war since WW2 except Gulf War 1. So what exactly are you arguing for - consistency? If so then your argument falls apart. John

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (88371)	3/31/2003 3:39:26 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<quite interesting from a purely legal perspective> No problem. Just dis-allow the "tu quoque" defense. Only allow our enemies' crimes as admissible to international courts. This is what we did at the Nurenburg trials. One of the constants of international war crimes trials, is that only the losers are accused, and only the winners can accuse. We are against the ICC, because we want to have the freedom to commit war crimes (as defined by the ICC), to pursue our national goals by force: Message 18759471

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (88371)	3/31/2003 5:51:24 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 281500

"I chaired an international commission on Kosovo and we came to the conclusion that, although illegal, it was legitimate Huh? That destroys his entire argument. What he is saying is that there is a law above international law which can justify actions. But this higher law isn't written down anywhere. So, where does it come from, and what are its standards, and how can he say Bush isn't following it? He has destroyed his whole premise.