Originally posted by inimalist
well, the UN said it was ok
Interesting justification made someone on the xkcd forums. The Constitution states that treaties are as binding as the Constitution itself (they're count among the things that are the "supreme law of the land"😉. The US signed a treaty that made it part of the the UN Security Council . . .
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Interesting justification made someone on the xkcd forums. The Constitution states that treaties are as binding as the Constitution itself (they're count among the things that are the "supreme law of the land"😉. The US signed a treaty that made it part of the the UN Security Council . . .
My point was more about how Canada backed out of Iraq by deferring to the UN. Sort of like, "well, what they say goes, the UN is clearly the best moral authority on the planet".
Thats a really weird point though. Given it is the constitution says Congress needs to vote on war, it would be interesting to see someone break down which takes precedence?
Like, that seems like a glaring weakness (albeit one the founding fathers probably couldn't foresee) in the constitution, if its provisions can be violated simply because of international treaties. Like, could the US join an international treaty that restricted freedom of expression and justify it under the constitutional provision that treaties need to be followed?
Originally posted by inimalist
Like, that seems like a glaring weakness (albeit one the founding fathers probably couldn't foresee) in the constitution, if its provisions can be violated simply because of international treaties. Like, could the US join an international treaty that restricted freedom of expression and justify it under the constitutional provision that treaties need to be followed?
Originally posted by inimalistTaking down Saddam was a brilliant move made by the US. It was what we did after he was dead, that is kicking us in the ass now.
that arguement is identical to the one made for taking down saddam
Furthermore, this situation is not similar to that one. The only major similarity is that a dicator is being removed.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Taking down Saddam was a brilliant move made by the US. It was what we did after he was dead, that is kicking us in the ass now.Furthermore, this situation is not similar to that one. The only major similarity is that a dicator is being removed.
I suppose we disagree on both of those points
Originally posted by BluesteelCan't invade China, that's where all our stuff comes from.
Why aint I suprised by any of this?I would like to see them invade Saudi Arabia. oh wait they are friends with the US. so they are ok.
But what about China? lots of people there are executed each year and shit. and God knows how many human rights they break over there.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Interesting justification made someone on the xkcd forums. The Constitution states that treaties are as binding as the Constitution itself (they're count among the things that are the "supreme law of the land"😉. The US signed a treaty that made it part of the the UN Security Council . . .
That's an argument that Ron Paul made for why the Iraq war was illegal.
Originally posted by inimalist
My point was more about how Canada backed out of Iraq by deferring to the UN. Sort of like, "well, what they say goes, the UN is clearly the best moral authority on the planet".Thats a really weird point though. Given it is the constitution says Congress needs to vote on war, it would be interesting to see someone break down which takes precedence?
Like, that seems like a glaring weakness (albeit one the founding fathers probably couldn't foresee) in the constitution, if its provisions can be violated simply because of international treaties. Like, could the US join an international treaty that restricted freedom of expression and justify it under the constitutional provision that treaties need to be followed?
No because there are certain "inalienable" rights that, regardless of what occurs, cannot be violated. We could have a conditional treaty...which all treaties are, anyway. They could not be treaties unless they were conditional: else it’s just two countries saying, “You want a treaty?”
“Sure!”
“So now what?”
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
America. **** yeah.
indeed🙂
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
This whole thing is bullshit. The US needs to quit sticking it's dick into other countries asses.
Do you have a car, do you buy plastic things? then your country needs the oil even if they have to invade, bomb other countries for it. If not the US and others will become 3rd world countries.🙂
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Watch your words, Canadimian, or else we'll put you guys next on our list of countries to bring democracy too!
You can´t, there´s a lot of froggies in Canada and the French would help them out, soo watch your step USA🙂
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Can't invade China, that's where all our stuff comes from.
Produced by modern slave labour, why do you think all the jobs are going in the west?
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not surprised the regieme is willing to co-operate with western demands at this point.My point about the oil was more that it seems to be one of the driving differences between how the Americans are dealing with the Libyan situation versus the one in Bahrain, though of course, there is always the issue of Iran.
However, like I highlighted in the video I posted above, Sarkozy says killing its own civilians delegitimized the libyan regieme, which the Bahraini state did. Further, the illegitimate leader of Bahrain called in foreign forces to put down the people of Bahrain, making it a foreign invasion enacted on the Bahraini people.
I can't help but think the geo-politics of oil reserves are behind this to some extent.
So once again is it the same old argument that if you can't act against violence everywhere then you shouldn't do it anywhere?
Originally posted by jaden101
So once again is it the same old argument that if you can't act against violence everywhere then you shouldn't do it anywhere?
I agree with that sentiment. A country's primary resonsiblity should be to its own people, first and foremost.
The justification for "world policing" is: it provides better prosperity in the long run for the American people. I don't buy that for the most part. Sure, you need to have trade-relations, good foreign relations, and a strong diplomacy arm, but you do not need a world police-arm...for the most part.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's weird, I thought he wanted to get out of the UN.Last I heard he was saying this one is illegal because Congress didn't approve it. I'm starting to think he's no a fan of war.
He does but I do not see that as a contradication: he supports the constitutionality "binding" treaties but wants to end some of the treaties...most likely to get out of those obligations, lol. In the case of the Iraq invasion, we violated our constitution by defying the wishes of a super important treaty we made in being part of the UN: we did not have their approval to go to war making our war unconstitutional. However, we voted on it and I believe that that vote would over-ride the unconstitutionality of our agreement with the UN. What is the UN going to do? They did nothing. We didn't even get "sanctioned" by other nations...France whined or something like that.
And, yeah, he doesn't like war because he sees it as a waste of money almost every single time.