I echo bunner's sentiments with enthusiasm. I certainly did not have the patience to spell out what seemed to me so basic a standard of civilized behavior. Thanks bunner.

---
What others say about boorite!

I am at an equal loss as to why I have to spell out why nations who lack such a basic standard of civilized behavior should be given any latitude to cause us harm. Obeying set laws is only good if all parties are playing by the same rules! Bunner said this very thing! Our enemies are not playing by those rules.

The UN's role as a body through which nations could resolve their differences was shaken, if not completely destroyed, after 9-11. It, like our own justice system seems to be increasingly doing, is only good for watching out for the criminals' rights.

Show me more legitimacy and less flowery language.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Actually, while I've disagreed with a lot he's been saying, I think on this issue MaaK at the very least makes some points worthy of consideration. For all that old saying about democracy being four wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, there are enough unsavory nations out there to push home some nasty "international law" in their own interests. We only need to look at some of the unconscionable things the world community and indeed the UN have done in the past to see that blindly running with the majority can at least on occasion be A Bad Thing.

MaaK has expressed the belief that the Hussein regime in Iraq was something that needed to be stopped, while boorite said that the US military action, particularly in defiance of the UN was an atrocity undertaken under false pretenses.

Who says they can't both be right?

Call me a dyed-in-the-wool, brainwashed American, but I'd say the principles we live under (in theory, not in practice) are pretty good ones, and that they should ideally be extended to the other citizens of this planet. In a nutshell, that would include first and foremost the right of self-determination and freedom from tyranny. It's easy to argue that the Iraqi people didn't have that under Hussein; it is also easy to argue that they don't have it now. What you think the situation will be like there a year or two from now probably should have a great bearing on what you think of what's happening there now.

We now resume our regularly scheduled broadcast of The Zax.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

I apologize for my wretched misspellings of MaKK in the post above. No offense intended -- just didn't have the page break to give the proper previews.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

No, they are not. They are based on the ideas of basic human rights and were drafted, and agreed to be be adhered to by all member nations - not just the weak ones - in order to create a framework within which the ongoing process of negotioation of which you speak could occur within mutually agreed upon guidelines. That process is not international law. That process is what international law was drafted to serve in a civil fashion.

Rule of law is not a series of imposed actions. It is a consesus amongst the participants in organisations that are governed by specific laws to adhere to them.

Good. That's what those laws are there to do.

I should hope not. No reasonable person would find such a facile and sophmoric argument to be satisfactory. Of course, that is not at all what I said. What I said was: "The legitimacy of the law is something in and of itself, [in that they agree] that the adherance to those laws [is] for the greater good, and the enforcement of them - when necessary - offers proof that the people who endorse the organisation that drafted them, and approve of the enforcement of those laws, offers them validity and legitimacy, Q.E.D."

In other words, a law is not a valid law simply because it looks or sounds like something that could be legislated. It finds it's validity in the majority of the people, organisations or interests whom it governs continuing to willingly adhere to it. One nation's decision to reject international law out of hand does not make it inavlid. You can say "the USA say that this is baloney, so it's completely invalid", and pretend that the entire UN general assembly has just voted with it's feet in agreement, but it's a lot of malarky.

We basically hope that the rule of majority falls upon the side of reason.

Agreed. See above.

Yeah, I'm a windy old sonofabitch. No argument there.

I now fully expect to be taken to task for not retiring from this forum after stating that I would, but I admit that the fact that you decided to at least somewhat address what I had written, interested me.

I still hold no hope for any sort of useful outcome to this, but I appreciate your interest in my expressed views.

---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.

You really ruin the fun by agreeing with me kaufman.

I spell my name a few different ways so it's ok.

Bunner somehow I think you are missing my point. I don't think I'm on a close enough wavelength to argue, maybe that is my failing, I'm sorry. I think though, again, that your reasoning (if I am getting at the heart of what you are saying) seems to be trying to apply the American democratic way of thinking across international boundaries..and if other nations operated like us, yes, the laws would have legitimacy, but a lot of nations don't operate like us. I don't care how much you pontificate on "the nature of law" or "how a bill becomes law" or "law is law". That is all together missing my point. And yet somehow I feel this is only ensuring more of the same verbiage.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

What I am saying is that the UN model of international law is what it is, and it is of no import as to it's validity whether or not it is modeled on historically Western or Eastern constructs.

It is it's own set of rules, codified and agreed upon - and pertinent to- the nations who participate. Those nations have agreed to adhere to it's language and structure regardless of what their culturally influenced ideas of national law may be.

If Saddam Hussein was guilty of that with which he was charged, and undermined interntional law and tried to, wrongly, bend it to his own devices with no justification for doing so, then he's wrong.

If George Bush undermined international law by dismissing it out of hand and deciding to attack a nation that had not been proven to be a clear and present danger to America simply by saying "Hey, screw you. We play along if and when we feel like it.", then he's wrong.

That is the nature of law in it's best form. It offers both redress and reproof equally according to the letter of it's intent.

The fact is: the weapons of mass destruction that were the stated justification for the US attacking Iraq, with no concern as to the acceptance of international law, have failed to materialise. Nor shall they.

This, according to the international laws to which the United States have agreed to adhere, is not somehow a lesser offence than what the Republic of Iraq has been accused of.

In other words, my advice to any country who would seek the proffered stability and protection of being a UN member nation is to walk it like you talk it or shut the fuck up. Any country.

Because just arbitraily waving your had at it and saying "pah!", when it's convenient, does not mean you're on God's side.

---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.

quote:

---

I am at an equal loss as to why I have to spell out why nations who lack such a basic standard of civilized behavior should be given any latitude to cause us harm. Obeying set laws is only good if all parties are playing by the same rules! Bunner said this very thing! Our enemies are not playing by those rules.

---

I'll offer you the same courtesy you extended to the sources of my links: the publishers of law.com and the Public Interest Lawyers who penned that article must be dumbasses!

And my point is that Iraq was capable, and a probable user of an anoymous or proxy terrorist attack against us. Again, you are judging Iraq by old standards.

And yeah, you can't prove someone is about to covertly attack you. But you can put and end to environments where something like that is likely to happen. And I think the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein was a likely place for that to happen.

When we were attacked by Al Qaeda, there were no troops massing on our borders, no artillery getting into position, no evidence of nuclear weapons being engineered. You are fighting yesterday's war.

Who cares what these international bodies think of a threat when it's very obvious the United States is the most likely target of a large, coordinated terrorist attack today.

And I've been thinking about something Kaufman wrote:

quote:

---

MaaK has expressed the belief that the Hussein regime in Iraq was something that needed to be stopped, while boorite said that the US military action, particularly in defiance of the UN was an atrocity undertaken under false pretenses.

Who says they can't both be right?

---

Who is more international than the French? Here is what they are thinking today about preemption. And yes in the article they postulate that the French would argue that there might not have been WMDs in Iraq. But I would qualify a potential terrorist threat as a WMD. But I would still say we used appropriate force for a preemptive attack. We didn't lob nukes into Iraq. We minimized casualities with mostly precision attacks.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

If that's the only justification necessary for bombing a country into the Paleozoic, why is there still a building left with one brick upon the other in N. Korea? I mean, since they pretty much told us to go fuck ourselves, are stockpiling nukes as we sleep, and their basic response to being asked to desist, was: "Fuck you. Bring it."

Could it be that it is because they are not a UN member nation, and could possibly turn everything west of Denver into an ox roast?

How inconvenient.

Would these newly archaicised standards be those of the law or simple civility?

---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.

Dude...

That's really cool of you to say so. I'm glad you found something of interest in what I wrote and were kind enough to overlook the fact that I do not write very well.

---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.

Congratz mak. You blathered for a long time. You didn't make much sense, but you kept it up for a long time.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

I wasn't attacking your writing style, I was just saying all of that was unecessary when it is based on the assumption that all the international players DO have that basic concept of human dignity and civility.

And I wondered similar things recently about North Korea. As best as I can tell, they essentially have a minaturized deterrence in place: they could very quickly devastate Seoul and other important economic centers in South Korea with the massive artillery they have in place. Unlike Iraq, they are very well armed and dug in, in the traditional military sense (if what I have read and heard about is in fact the case). North Korea declaring that it has a nuclear program isn't worth the destruction of South Korea.

I also don't know how easily the Jihad phenomenon could transfer to North Korea, and they have a lot invested in "traditional" arms (and the policy of showing off those arms as a deterrance) so it maybe be unlikely that they could directly surprise us. It is a little unsettling to think they could make a nuke and deliver it to another hostile nation but again it is different from the Iraq situation, in that North Korea is poised to destroy at least one of its neighbors, and has rockets that can reach at least Japan, were it attacked. With no military action it will not definitely lead to an attack by North Korea against democratic nations and economic centers. A military action almost certainly would result in such destruction.

Tell me what didn't make sense and I will be happy to clarify. I think maybe you have too idealistic views of your fellow men, women and governments to understand though. How can one be so cynical of your government at home, and so enamored with governments abroad?

Kaufman and wirthling seemed to understand me fine, whether or not they agreed with me. I think maybe you are just saying that because it's easier than considering my points of view. I'm sorry you aren't more open-minded.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

It is simple minded and poor debating style to put words in people's mouths. I know I never said I liked Saddam and I doubt bunner or boo did either. Heck, I never even shook his hand or sold weapons to him. I understood you. I'm saying that when you twist words and make accusations, your words become blather. And it is a poor substitute for having a point.

Speaking of which, this just in…

FOX NEWS DECLARES BUSH WINNER OF 2004 ELECTION.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

quote:

---

It is simple minded and poor debating style to put words in people's mouths. I know I never said I liked Saddam and I doubt bunner or boo did either. Heck, I never even shook his hand or sold weapons to him. I understood you. I'm saying that when you twist words and make accusations, your words become blather. And it is a poor substitute for having a point.

Speaking of which, this just in…

---

Ah yes, those international law professors are on the same level as WorldNet Daily, who says you can tie a dozen videogames together and send 'em into the battlefield. I see it now.

BTW, you didn't provide those sources or links. You just made a glancing reference to some alleged fact, and I had to go find the source myself. You don't even research your own misinformation.

So we are permitted to invade any country that is hypothetically capable of carrying out a terrorist attack, as long as we imagine that they are willing to do so. You have just presented an a fortiori case for invading the US and UK.

Actually, you can. FBI agent John O'Neil was right on Osama's tail when he was drummed out of the FBI. He became security chief for the WTC. At that time, he told friends he figured al Qaeda would be going back there to finish the job they'd started in 1993. The night before he and 2700 others died there, he told a former colleague that something big was about to come out of Afghanistan, very soon. So yes, there is very definitely such a thing as evidence of an impending secret terrorist attack. This is what we call "intelligence." And we claimed to have much of it with respect to Iraqi plans to attack us. Turns out it was all bullshit.

How about now, under US occupation? Would you guess that is an environment that is likely to foster terror attacks against us? Oh wait, actually there is no need to guess on that one.

So you're saying Iraq was planning an al Qaeda style attack. I see we can just make shit up and use it to invade countries now.

Yeah, who cares? No other countries have been targets of terror. Hell with them. We're backing out of the whole edifice of international law. Screw all those treaties we signed.

quote:

---

I think both things are right...And in fact I believe I said the war was presented under false pretenses. I didn't buy any of the WMD justification,

---

I provided links to stories. You are mistaken. And I addressed your misinterpratation of the context I present that story in many times.

The US and UK are open democracies. Again you display an astounding lack of common sense.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yeah, you can't prove someone is about to covertly attack you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, you can. FBI agent John O'Neil was right on Osama's tail when he was drummed out of the FBI. He became security chief for the WTC. At that time, he told friends he figured al Qaeda would be going back there to finish the job they'd started in 1993. The night before he and 2700 others died there, he told a former colleague that something big was about to come out of Afghanistan, very soon. So yes, there is very definitely such a thing as evidence of an impending secret terrorist attack. This is what we call "intelligence." And we claimed to have much of it with respect to Iraqi plans to attack us. Turns out it was all bullshit.

---

Makk, I don't think the UN Charter supercedes anyone's security or stability, least of all ours. As I said, I (like most of the world) did not view the Iraq of 2003 to be an immediate threat to anyone, least of all the most powerful country in the history of the world.

I think it's clear where we both stand now. I'm satisfied to let yours be the last words on this particular exchange.

---
What others say about boorite!

Awww...

Well if it's over I will tell you I do think how we were sold on the war was pretty sleazy. And if the WMD threat was over-stated it in the end undermines our own security, for if our intelligence uncovered REAL WMD evidence in a country (assuming what we has wasn't real in Iraq) it would now be harder to act on it (or hard to act on it as long as what we were led to believe was in Iraq was in fact not in Iraq).

I also think it was foolish to shit can all of our international support just to move in. I wondered if maybe to complete our military objectives (or to prevent the implementation of alleged WMDs) it might have been possible that we HAD to act on the time table we did to eliminate whatever threat was there, and everyone else be damned. For lack of anything to prove this is the case, I think we definitely could have eventually come to some consensus on how to remove Saddam in the international community with some more work. I think we had the opposite of a Churchill in this respect with Bush: he was abound with decisive traditional military victories, but unable to provide much in the way of reassuring and inspiring political rhetoric. If he had spent a little more energy calling for a consensus and a much less energy calling nations irrelevant there would have been a willing coalition, we could have moved in, and there wouldn't be this dark could hanging all over the whole nonsense.

I still think what we did was objectively right (just in terms of taking out Saddam). It was only subjectively wrong because we had no consensus internationally. I think the paradox is our own diplomatic actions (or lack thereof) created the very subjective lack of moral authority that may haunt us for a while, and may even trump the objective right of what we did in Iraq.

Thanks for the fun boorite,
xoxo,
mAAk

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Bush sucks. But Cheney swallows.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

k mAAk PM me l8r 4 cyber xoxo

---
What others say about boorite!

http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?section=MyLycos&storyId=795957

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Yeah, the Washpost had a big piece on that today, naturally, since it was a Washpost/ABC poll. To me, the prospect of a second Shrub term has had that same creepy check-is-in-the-mail feeling that immediately preceded his dad's decline and fall. And here it is, a year before the election, and Bush, a sitting wartime President, is in a dead heat with a Democrat yet to be named, with only 5% undecided. Yes, he's neck and neck with a big fat question mark. Which is to say, half of those with an opinion would prefer any Democrat. This is not the wave Bush wanted to ride into Election Year, I can tell you.

---
What others say about boorite!

I wonder if such a poll would be different if a name were attached to the Domcrat's alternative, rather than "any Democrat". Saying "would you prefer Bush or any other person" lets everyone polled use their imagination. Swing voters might not get the opponent they imagined for that poll, and prefer Bush over a specific Democrat candidate.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008