Anybody up-to-date on current events, I need help!

@Insty,

Insty;133607 wrote:

The burden is properly on you to make arguments in support of the intervention because on its face, the war was plainly a violation of the Charter. The UN refused to authorize the US's action. And the Charter, by which the US is bound, makes very clear that war is permissible only under certain limited circumstances. If a member nation wishes to engage in war with another nation, it's incumbent upon the nation contemplating war to show that one of the exceptional circumstances is met.

And no one is saying that you need to prove that the war was a violation of international law. You just need to give some reasons in support of your view. Otherwise, those who disagree with you won't know where to begin.

Does the fact that the UN fails to authorize a nation's action show that nation's action is a violation of the Charter. Why?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;133669 wrote:

Does the fact that the UN fails to authorize a nation's action show that nation's action is a violation of the Charter. Why?

It doesn't constitute conclusive proof, but it certainly supports that conclusion. But as I said before, this puts the cart before the horse. As a prima facie matter, waging war against another nation is a violation of the Charter. If a nation wants to initiate military action against another, it's incumbent upon that nation to show that one of the narrow exceptions to the general prohibition on military action is applicable to the situation. You still haven't even attempted to explain how the US's actions were not a violation of the Charter.

@Insty,

Insty;133738 wrote:

It doesn't constitute conclusive proof, but it certainly supports that conclusion. But as I said before, this puts the cart before the horse. As a prima facie matter, waging war against another nation is a violation of the Charter. If a nation wants to initiate military action against another, it's incumbent upon that nation to show that one of the narrow exceptions to the general prohibition on military action is applicable to the situation. You still haven't even attempted to explain how the US's actions were not a violation of the Charter.

I guess that I am not so concerned about the Charter as you are. My concern is the interests of the United States. If invasion of another country without the approval of the UN is presumptively a violation of the Charter then you are tautologically right. But I find it hard to get exercised about it.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;133599 wrote:

It is really up to you, and those who assert it was a violation, to prove it. Why should it be up to anyone to show it wasn't a violation?

Imust admit I am to lazy to walk to my study and look for the UN Charter. As far as I remember the US tried to get approval of the UN for invading Iraq, but was stopped in the Security Counsil.

Based on information given by US intelligence the British PM thought we could all be wiped away by Sadam in 45 minutes. The Dutch followed this thread...

We just had a debate about the (international) grounds of supporting the war in Iraq. Conclusions were that the UN resolutions against Iraq didn't justify an armed attack. Our PM is still defending his decission to go to war. He just calls it "political" support; like there weren't any Dutch soldiers involved.

Personally I think he should be trialed in The Hague for war crimes, just as Tony Blair. Since the US is no part of this Treaty it's up to the USA population to deal with GW Bush.

The Dutch should read their constitution as well. Declaration of War was never formally given, or asked for. As far as I remember from Law School, it is the Staten-Generaal (Dutch Parlement) which has to decide on the subject of War & Peace.

So I conclude that in The Netherlands the government violated International Law and the Dutch Constitution. Our power eager PM looked so pleased to be received by the American President, our Minister for Foreign Affairs became Secretary-General of the NATO.

---------- Post added 02-28-2010 at 10:20 PM ----------

kennethamy;133669 wrote:

Does the fact that the UN fails to authorize a nation's action show that nation's action is a violation of the Charter. Why?

I think you measure with double standards. In the case of Persia the UN fails to recognize the right of a country to defend itself. I think it's only wise to arm yourself with belligrant countries and armies at your borders. I think you're right; it's possible to put UN resolutions a-side without officially violating the UN Charter. The state of Isreal gets away with it constantly thanks to the veto-right of some permanent members of the Security Counsil.

---------- Post added 02-28-2010 at 10:35 PM ----------

kennethamy;133826 wrote:

I guess that I am not so concerned about the Charter as you are. My concern is the interests of the United States. If invasion of another country without the approval of the UN is presumptively a violation of the Charter then you are tautologically right. But I find it hard to get exercised about it.

I think it is so US to be so legalized and self-right-ious to set aside the UN-Charter, but on the other hand activate the NATO-treaty. If it were up to me I would start cancelling minor economic treaties with the US government. I would vote for freezing military relations with the US government till it's clear that we can trust the received information.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;133826 wrote:

I guess that I am not so concerned about the Charter as you are. My concern is the interests of the United States. If invasion of another country without the approval of the UN is presumptively a violation of the Charter then you are tautologically right. But I find it hard to get exercised about it.

I actually never said that the Charter was important to me personally. In fact, it isn't/wasn't. As I've already indicated, I didn't oppose the Iraq War, and I came to that conclusion even though I believed that the War probably was a violation of the Charter.

I was only pointing out that there are very strong grounds for believing that the war was indeed a violation of the Charter. And I pointed this out because you suggested that there wasn't even a plausible case to be made for the view that the war violated the Charter.

@Insty,

:cool: In the Kingdom of The Netherlands we are with three countries Governed by a Statute and a Queen and an extended Cabinet of Ministers & Secretaries of State.

In my country The Netherlands, or more clearly Holland, the UN Charter is legally pre-dominant to the Constitution of a'round 1984. Any Law in Holland can be Judged to Treaties, Conventions etc..

At the moment we are held Hostage by a PM & christian Orthodox Ministers we socialists ab-horror. The Queen is power-less because of un-written rules. There is no Rule in the Constitution to Stop Her from banning Geert Wilders. She could cease his constituency to Germany if Nessescary. That was Radical

@Quinn phil,

Quinn;132680 wrote:

Any examples of modern day appeasement to a type of imperialism?

Yeah, Obama.

And on the topic of "American" imperialism, I have wondered a long while at Wittgenstein's rejection of categories in the TLP. It may have been more of an attack of the philosophers before him, but in day-to-day things I have wondered at our categorical claims of all and some and American and Chinese. All in all, it doesn't seem like categories add anything to the claims being made beyond what could only be described as stereotypical bias.

@Quinn phil,

the U.S. military industrial complex.

@jack phil,

:perplexed:yn Pardonne Moi ... The Vigin Ylands:sarcastic:

I en-joy Palmas muchichisso.

Why is Puerto Rico not an U.S. State ?

Or

@jack phil,

jack;136608 wrote:

Yeah, Obama.

Can you explain a bit more? I drowned out of politics when Obama lied aout all the change he was gonna make. Laughing

Philosophy Forum

Anybody up-to-date on current events, I need help!

Quick Links

My Account

able2know