Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[rainbow]

Did science ever decide anything about room temperature superconductors?

We are still debating whether it is ethical to dope magnesium diboride.
...and if so, why?

[Seth]

The US should have invaded Saudi Arabia

On what basis?

Saudi Arabia never attacked the US.
There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia has no WMD.

Iraq never attacked the US.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, an ally of ours with whom we had a defense treaty.

There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Iraq.

A UN resolution is not required for the US to come to the defense of its allies. Never has been. Never will be.

Iraq had no WMD.

Iraq most certainly DID have WMDs, thousands upon thousands of artillery shells and bombs loaded with Sarin, among other things (which are now, or were until recently in Syria, transported there just prior to the 2nd Gulf War. Just ask the Kurds who were gassed using those WMDS in the 1980s, or the Iranians.

And, Saddam went to great pains to convince the rest of the world that he DID have both nuke and biological WMD programs in operation. It turned out to be a bluff, but it was a good one and got his neck stretched eventually. You don't go to war with perfect intelligence, you go to war with the intelligence you have, which all of the Coalition leaders agreed was compelling enough to restart hostilities because Saddam was refusing to honor the conditions of the cease-fire agreement he signed after we kicked his ass out of Kuwait.

We were talking about 2003, genius.

Yes, we were, doofus.

The military actions in 2003 were simply a continuation of the hostilities initiated by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. On March 20, 2003, after 12 years of repeated violations of the cease-fire agreement (keep that term in mind, it's important) and Saddam's refusal to leave Iraq with his sons we resumed hostilities with a cruise missile attack, followed by ground and air actions leading to Saddam being deposed, his sons being shot while resisting arrest, and Saddam himself being found hiding in a hole.

Your repeated and completely false implication that the 2003 resumption of hostilities was an "illegal" invasion is getting old and tired. The facts are that after 12 years and 14 violated UN resolutions the Coalition had enough and moved to depose Hussein, an action fully justified by both his belligerence in the past, his intransigence at abiding by the conditions under which we agreed to suspend (not cease) military actions occasioned by his illegal invasion of Kuwait, and his continued open advertisement to the world that he had, and was developing chemical, nuclear and biological weapons in defiance of the UN mandates forbidding him to do so.

You need to understand that the 2003 actions were not an "illegal invasion" they were a resuming of military actions legally and morally justified by his repeated violations of the cease-fire agreement. A cease-fire agreement is just that, an agreement to cease firing on one another predicated on and dependent upon each side abiding by the terms of the agreement, which in Saddam's case included full and complete cooperation with UN weapons inspectors, something he never once did.

That the Coalition waited 12 years with extraordinary patience in the face of repeated open and notorious provocations doesn't change the fact that we were operating under the cease-fire agreement and could have legally and morally resumed military action at any time after the cease-fire was signed upon the occasion of a single substantive violation of that agreement by Hussein, much less 12 years of repeated, open, notorious, hostile and belligerent violations of 14 separate UN sanctions.

So, we cannot "talk about 2003" without putting it in the context of why those actions took place and what the legal and moral justifications for taking them were. You want to elide all that went before to support your idiotic personal agenda of bashing the United States. I'm not playing that game with you.

[Seth]

Did science ever decide anything about room temperature superconductors?

We are still debating whether it is ethical to dope magnesium diboride.
...and if so, why?

Only if Magnesia consents to being doped and isn't engaged in a professional or amateur sport which prohibits doping.

[Svartalf]

Did science ever decide anything about room temperature superconductors?

We are still debating whether it is ethical to dope magnesium diboride.
...and if so, why?

isn't boron doping the magnesium already?

[Seth]

Did science ever decide anything about room temperature superconductors?

We are still debating whether it is ethical to dope magnesium diboride.
...and if so, why?

isn't boron doping the magnesium already?

Naughty Boron! Sound like rape to me. Somebody call Argon to come to Magnesium's rescue.

[pErvinalia]

On what basis?

Saudi Arabia never attacked the US.
There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia has no WMD.

Iraq never attacked the US.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, an ally of ours with whom we had a defense treaty.

There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Iraq.

A UN resolution is not required for the US to come to the defense of its allies. Never has been. Never will be.

Iraq had no WMD.

Iraq most certainly DID have WMDs, thousands upon thousands of artillery shells and bombs loaded with Sarin, among other things (which are now, or were until recently in Syria, transported there just prior to the 2nd Gulf War. Just ask the Kurds who were gassed using those WMDS in the 1980s, or the Iranians.

And, Saddam went to great pains to convince the rest of the world that he DID have both nuke and biological WMD programs in operation. It turned out to be a bluff, but it was a good one and got his neck stretched eventually. You don't go to war with perfect intelligence, you go to war with the intelligence you have, which all of the Coalition leaders agreed was compelling enough to restart hostilities because Saddam was refusing to honor the conditions of the cease-fire agreement he signed after we kicked his ass out of Kuwait.

We were talking about 2003, genius.

Yes, we were, doofus.

The military actions in 2003 were simply a continuation of the hostilities initiated by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. On March 20, 2003, after 12 years of repeated violations of the cease-fire agreement (keep that term in mind, it's important) and Saddam's refusal to leave Iraq with his sons we resumed hostilities with a cruise missile attack, followed by ground and air actions leading to Saddam being deposed, his sons being shot while resisting arrest, and Saddam himself being found hiding in a hole.

Your repeated and completely false implication that the 2003 resumption of hostilities was an "illegal" invasion is getting old and tired. The facts are that after 12 years and 14 violated UN resolutions the Coalition had enough and moved to depose Hussein, an action fully justified by both his belligerence in the past, his intransigence at abiding by the conditions under which we agreed to suspend (not cease) military actions occasioned by his illegal invasion of Kuwait, and his continued open advertisement to the world that he had, and was developing chemical, nuclear and biological weapons in defiance of the UN mandates forbidding him to do so.

You need to understand that the 2003 actions were not an "illegal invasion" they were a resuming of military actions legally and morally justified by his repeated violations of the cease-fire agreement. A cease-fire agreement is just that, an agreement to cease firing on one another predicated on and dependent upon each side abiding by the terms of the agreement, which in Saddam's case included full and complete cooperation with UN weapons inspectors, something he never once did.

That the Coalition waited 12 years with extraordinary patience in the face of repeated open and notorious provocations doesn't change the fact that we were operating under the cease-fire agreement and could have legally and morally resumed military action at any time after the cease-fire was signed upon the occasion of a single substantive violation of that agreement by Hussein, much less 12 years of repeated, open, notorious, hostile and belligerent violations of 14 separate UN sanctions.

So, we cannot "talk about 2003" without putting it in the context of why those actions took place and what the legal and moral justifications for taking them were. You want to elide all that went before to support your idiotic personal agenda of bashing the United States. I'm not playing that game with you.

It wasn't authorised by the UNSC. Sorry, bro.

[piscator]

Who gives a fuck? Your country certainly didn't.

At any point in the history of mankind, the Kuwait oil well fires and Gulf oil dumps would be enough for someone to depose Saddam.

Chemweps are WMDs, btw.

[pErvinalia]

We are discussing legality. "Who gives a fuck" isn't a sensible answer.

[piscator]

You live in a colony. It's different for you...

Nonetheless, Diggers were among the first in Iraq in 2003.

[pErvinalia]

Is this tu quo que time again? Have you morphed into Seth/42?

[piscator]

Straya knew it was long overdue. Everyone did.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... ution_1441

[pErvinalia]

Legality.

[Forty Two]

It wasn't authorised by the UNSC. Sorry, bro.

Neither was the more recent Libyan action, the current Syrian war, the bombings of Yemen, etc. Neither is Operation Barkhane in Africa, which has been going on for a year and a half.

A war or military action is either legal or illegal. An illegal war does not become legal if the UNSC approves it, and a legal war does not become illegal by declaration of the UNSC. The UN Charter vests no such "war legality declaration power" on the UNSC. Approval of the UNSC is political support, and also the expression of the SC that a particular action is legal. But, each country's opinion on international law issues is that country's opinion.

[Forty Two]

We are discussing legality. "Who gives a fuck" isn't a sensible answer.

If we're discussing legality, then clearly the Security Counsel approval is not required for a war or military action to be legal. Most wars are not approved the Security Council.

In the case of Iraq -- the US government stated that an armed attack by Iraq did occur against the US and its coalition partners as demonstrated by the assassination attempt on former US President George H. W. Bush in 1993 and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones over Northern and Southern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement. The firing on coalition aircraft, as Seth noted, was also in violation of the ceasefire accords from the Gulf War. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the countries have the reserved right of self-defense and needs no UN mandate to act. Also, the US and the UK pointed out that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities.

It was a thorny legal issue and is debated, and debatable. However, both sides have an argument. That would explain why nobody has asked the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the topic, and no country has asked the UN itself to declare it illegal.

Very rarely, however, do I see folks applying the same standard of "war legality" to wars started after 2008 as they did to the Iraq War. Do we hear any of the same rationales applied to, say, Syria, as with Iraq? Syria hasn't attacked anyone. No UN resolution. No Congressional authorization. Libya too.

[Seth]

There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Iraq.

A UN resolution is not required for the US to come to the defense of its allies. Never has been. Never will be.

It wasn't authorised by the UNSC. Sorry, bro.

A UN resolution is not required for the US to come to the defense of its allies. Never has been. Never will be.

The United States is a sovereign nation, not a vassal state of the United Nations, and while it might be nice to have the UNSC approve of what we, as a sovereign nation, do with our military, it is not a "legal" requirement because the UN Security Council most certainly is NOT the supreme authority of anything, it being infested with communists and other Marxist influences that make it an utterly impotent and worthless advisory body with even more utterly useless and worthless security forces who are the laughingstock of every military on earth.

Fuck the UN.