Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

[Cormac]

Which means, among other things, that our invasion of Iraq on the basis that Saddam was holding undeclared WMD's after the Gulf War cease fire was perfectly correct and legitimate.

As military analysts and anyone living in Israel can tell you, Syria has had large stockpiles of declared chemical weapons for decades.

So, if (and it's still an if, sorry Seth) the existence of chemical munitions in Iraq justified the invasion, why hasn't anyone invaded Syria yet?

Because Syria hasn't invaded Kuwait, been defeated, signed a cease-fire agreement, violated that agreement immediately, violated 14 UN agreements, and refused to stop being belligerent and supporting international terrorism for a dozen years.

I was in favor of invading Syria way back when based on the same criteria.

But that's not the point, the point is that Saddam's WMD's exist, and have existed since the early 80's, it's just that they were moved to Syria before we got to Baghdad the second time and found that fuck living in a hole in the ground.

I'm just kicking the shit out of the "unjustified war" claim that all the liberals have been trumpeting all this time.

Where'd he get those WMDs by the way?

Mostly China, Russia and France, along with the rest of his armed forces.

IIRC - that chart is for all weaponry.

The countries that supplied WMD materials were primarily USA, UK, France, Germany, China, and a smattering of other countries.

However, as I outlined above, key materials came from a small group of countries.

[Seth]

So, in other words, your argument is that we can go to war anytime we want, "because we can" ?

Well why didn't you say so! And here I thought this had something to do with WMDs. Silly moi!

It did. This time. I'm pointing out that the US is not subject to ICC jurisdiction and as a sovereign nation can wage war against anyone it deems to be an enemy if it chooses to do so.

[rainbow]

So, in other words, your argument is that we can go to war anytime we want, "because we can" ?

Well why didn't you say so! And here I thought this had something to do with WMDs. Silly moi!

It did. This time. I'm pointing out that the US is not subject to ICC jurisdiction and as a sovereign nation can wage war against anyone it deems to be an enemy if it chooses to do so.

Of course you have the right to getting your butt kicked by any rag-tag third world nation.
...just don't try to justify yourself by telling porkies.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, in other words, your argument is that we can go to war anytime we want, "because we can" ?

Well why didn't you say so! And here I thought this had something to do with WMDs. Silly moi!

It did. This time. I'm pointing out that the US is not subject to ICC jurisdiction and as a sovereign nation can wage war against anyone it deems to be an enemy if it chooses to do so.

Not exactly. It has signed on to the United Nations charter, and the US has agreed not to wage aggressive war. There are also peremptory norms of jus cogens which the US has acknowledged which limit when the US can wage war. International law is not "US deems country X an enemy" therefore the war is legal. The legal basis under international law that the US relies on for the invasion of Iraq is Security Council Resolution 678, which authorizes the US to use any and all necessary means to enforce Resolution 660 and all subsequent resolutions to restore international security and peace to the area.

[MrJonno]

Asking a nations government whether war is legal is a bit like asking a rapist if his victim consented

[Gerald McGrew]

the US is not subject to ICC jurisdiction and as a sovereign nation can wage war against anyone it deems to be an enemy if it chooses to do so.

So why did we get all pissed off when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

[Seth]

the US is not subject to ICC jurisdiction and as a sovereign nation can wage war against anyone it deems to be an enemy if it chooses to do so.

So why did we get all pissed off when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

Because Kuwait was our ally and we had a defense pact with them.

[Gerald McGrew]

the US is not subject to ICC jurisdiction and as a sovereign nation can wage war against anyone it deems to be an enemy if it chooses to do so.

So why did we get all pissed off when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

Because Kuwait was our ally and we had a defense pact with them.

So according to your posts, it's ok for the US to invade whoever we want, whenever we want...but not for anyone else?

[Seth]

the US is not subject to ICC jurisdiction and as a sovereign nation can wage war against anyone it deems to be an enemy if it chooses to do so.

So why did we get all pissed off when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

Because Kuwait was our ally and we had a defense pact with them.

So according to your posts, it's ok for the US to invade whoever we want, whenever we want...but not for anyone else?

Yup.

[Coito ergo sum]

the US is not subject to ICC jurisdiction and as a sovereign nation can wage war against anyone it deems to be an enemy if it chooses to do so.

So why did we get all pissed off when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

Funny how the fact that an action was multilateral gets lost in the shuffle when convenient.

It was not just the US got that got pissed off. There was near unanimity in the world community on that one. 32 countries contributed military personnel to the coalition. Most others were in favor of it.

[Gerald McGrew]

Funny how the fact that an action was multilateral gets lost in the shuffle when convenient.

It was not just the US got that got pissed off. There was near unanimity in the world community on that one. 32 countries contributed military personnel to the coalition. Most others were in favor of it.

Nothing got lost, I totally agree. I just wanted to see if Seth really was arguing that the US, and only the US, can do whatever it wants.

[Coito ergo sum]

Funny how the fact that an action was multilateral gets lost in the shuffle when convenient.

It was not just the US got that got pissed off. There was near unanimity in the world community on that one. 32 countries contributed military personnel to the coalition. Most others were in favor of it.

Nothing got lost, I totally agree. I just wanted to see if Seth really was arguing that the US, and only the US, can do whatever it wants.

Well, it's a rather silly contention to say that only the US can lawfully do "whatever it wants." It can't, and nobody else can.

The only grain of truth within Seth's argument is the reality that international law is still largely based on mutual, voluntary agreement and power balances between independent, theoretically sovereign, powers that each claim no authority above them other than that which they voluntarily agree to adhere to and only for so long as their consent continues.

So, to some extent, the US can go further than other countries because the US has the power to do so. That doesn't make all US actions lawful, however.

Where people go wrong is picturing international law in the same way as domestic law, enacted by legislators, binding without individual consent, etc. The decisions of the UN are only binding via consent of the member states, and the decisions of the Security Council are only votes on what the law is, enforced by power.

[Gerald McGrew]

Agreed.

[Seth]

Well, it's a rather silly contention to say that only the US can lawfully do "whatever it wants." It can't, and nobody else can.

Wrong. We can, and nobody else can. We're the world's enforce of peace and justice and the rest of you sheeple handed us that power and title 60 years or more ago when you came begging on your knees for us to protect you from the Soviet threat. The Pax Americana is alive and well, and you forget it at your peril. Just ask Osama. Ponder for a moment on the billions upon billions of dollars Americans spent to kill one man. Fuck with us and we will fuck with you right back, and you will lose.

The only grain of truth within Seth's argument is the reality that international law is still largely based on mutual, voluntary agreement and power balances between independent, theoretically sovereign, powers that each claim no authority above them other than that which they voluntarily agree to adhere to and only for so long as their consent continues.

Precisely.

So, to some extent, the US can go further than other countries because the US has the power to do so. That doesn't make all US actions lawful, however.

Of course it does. If we declare it lawful, it's lawful, and since we're sovereign no one can gainsay us unless they can defeat us in battle. To the victor go the spoils, and might, in the case of the US, makes right. The US is the best nation on the planet and the rest of y'all are just barbarians and bungling boobs who need to listen to your betters when it comes to messing with our interests. As for socialists, Marxists and Communists, they are enemies of free people everywhere because they adhere to an inherently evil and tyrannical sociopolitical system and the US has the right and the power to crush such tyranny with extreme prejudice whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head, if we choose to do so.

Where people go wrong is picturing international law in the same way as domestic law, enacted by legislators, binding without individual consent, etc. The decisions of the UN are only binding via consent of the member states, and the decisions of the Security Council are only votes on what the law is, enforced by power.

[/quote]

Which means that the law is what the US says it is, and the decisions of the UN are not binding on the US because we may repudiate any such decision (by vetoing it) and we can enforce whatever law we determine is in the best interests of the US and world peace.

Anybody care to go to war to try to change that balance of power? Bring it.

[Ian]

Are you actually a Klingon?