I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Now that is a foul. IMO.

DrewDad wrote:

Now that is a foul. IMO.

What is?

Vigilantism was used as justification for lynchings, too.

You want people running around the countryside shouting "string 'im up" again?

rip you up now? I'm shocked!!! You were one of the last around here I thought swung that way..

georgeob1 wrote:

The point has been made that the U.S. government violated treaty law (The Treaty of San Francisco in which the U.S. and other States established the UN and its charter) by invading Iraq. Under the Charter signatory nations renounced aggressive war, but retained the right of serf-defense. (There is other verbiage amplifying all this but I have expressed the essence of it accurately.) The UN Security Council was given the authority to deal with exceptional cases threatening general security, but even in these was expected to abide by the Charter.

Correct.

georgeob1 wrote:

Joe from Chicago is certainly correct in asserting our Constitution recognizes such treaty obligations as binding law. So the question remains, - Did the U.S. government break its own law and international law by invading Iraq? No action has been brought in any U.S. court on the question, and, given that the Congress of the United States authorized the action, I don't see that any judicial or enforcement action is possible. No action has been brought in the UN either. Admittedly, we have a veto in the Security Council and could readily stop any attempt to express a judgement against us in this matter. However, it is significant that no such action has been attempted by any of the members of the Security Council. There is no charge against us on the International law aspect of this supposed crime, - we are not accused.

This is hardly significant. Just because there are no charges filed doesn't mean that no crime was committed. In some cases, it just means that the persons or entities responsible for enforcing the laws are too timid or afraid to carry out their duties.

georgeob1 wrote:

These points are not as quibbling as they may appear. There are several forms and levels of law, and laws that are not enforced, or which are incapable of enforcement, are not laws in the same sense as (say) the criminal laws of most countries. Some countries claim extraordinary legal jurisdiction over what we (and others) consider to be international waters or international straits or passages accessible to all under our interpretation of international law. We (and others) routinely sail our ships through disputed passages, often only to establish the precedent and our rights under our interpretation of the law. Indeed the ultimate historical test for just what constitutes international law (given the many different and often competing claims put upon it) is the regular and effective enforcement of it by a sovereign nation or collections of them.

Actually, I think this is correct. Indeed, as I have mentioned before:

International law is changing all the time. And typically the law reflects practice rather than vice versa, so what the US does today may be recognized as the international norm tomorrow. Of course, that may not be a good thing -- not even for the US.

Stated differently, what the US does today in contravention of international law may become the common practice tomorrow -- just as the invader of today may become the invadee of tomorrow.

georgeob1 wrote:

The history of the last 60 years is rife with actions which can arguably be construed as violations of various segments of the UN Charter, and which have seen no response whatever from that august body. It is neither reasonable nor fair to expect the UN to rise above the level of political and legal development of the mass of its members. No standards have been established for membership. as in the case of the EU: virtually every nation in the world is represented in the UN General Assembly, and all have ratified the Charter. We must accept and deal with the UN as it is, not as we may wish it in some fanciful abstract excursion of thought. "Laws" that as a matter of practical fact do not bind some nations such as Rwanda, Congo, Zimbabwe, the Former Soviet Union, Islamist extremists operating from and with the cooperation oif several countries, and many, many others, cannot be rigorously applied to others - unless they wish to be the fools of the lawless.

Not only must we accept the UN as it is, but the US must also accept its treaty obligations as they are, and the US's treaties obligate it to refrain from launching pre-emptive wars.

georgeob1 wrote:

In 1991 Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait without evident provocation. By the conventional standards of international law this was clearly and unambiguously an aggressive war that violated the UN Charter. Ironically, Saddam had fairly good historical and national strategic arguments on his side. Kuwait was largely the creation of British imperialists who wanted a small controllable government in "control" of the principal then known oil fields. In Ottoman terms it was not distinct from the province of Basra, and before that it had been under the rule of Bagdad. Who was right?

In that war, clearly the UN-backed coalition was right.

georgeob1 wrote:

The US led a coalition that later obtained UN sanction for driving Iraq out of Kuwait, and Iraq signed an agreement with the coalition principals establishing the terms of restored peace between them. .The U.S. has argued that Saddam failed to comply with the agreement settling that dispute and that, as a result it has a right to act against Iraq under the original sanction. Later, during the dispute over the WMD matter, the U.S. claimed - at the time it was passed - that the Security Council ultimatum to Saddam authorized us to take action if he failed to comply. France quickly expressed a contrary view, but this was a contest of interpretation, not fact. That dispute has never formally been resolved, at least to my knowledge. So the present situation is that the U.S. claims that it has acted fully in accordance with Security Council Resolutions, while other Council members have argued the to the contrary. The Council itself has not resolved the matter. Finally the U.S. has argued that it was acting in self-defense in the face of an international conspiracy - that had already attacked us and which vowed continued attacks- involving Islamists and certain authoritarian states coopertaing with them and supporting them, and that this alone justifies its action under the Charter. No contrary resolution has been passed by the Security Council.

It matters not that the UN Security Council has passed no resolutions condemning the US action. Just because the UNSC has failed to live up to its moral obligations does not absolve the US from its failure to live up to its legal obligations.

georgeob1 wrote:

This is where the legal question stands.

This situation certainly does permit Joe from Chicago to argue that the U.S. has violated international law, but that is merely his opinion, not established fact. I would argue to the contrary, and I strongly believe the weight of evidence is with me.

I've identified my evidence. Where is yours?

You CANNOT be patriotic if you wish your country to lose.

OK. I admit that my original post about vigilantism was tossed off w/o much thought.

I stand by my other posts, though.

Here is the essence (as I understand it) of Joe's argument in response to my post.

joefromchicago wrote:

It matters not that the UN Security Council has passed no resolutions condemning the US action. Just because the UNSC has failed to live up to its moral obligations does not absolve the US from its failure to live up to its legal obligations.

In effect he makes his own "moral" judgement about the matter and concludes that this settles it.

This is a reasonable basis on which Joe (or anyone) can form an opinion for himelf. However this does not constitute a rational legal judgement on the question - it is not a reason for anyone else who does not happen to frame the "moral" question so narrowly to accept his assertion, and it would not be considered an acceptable argument in any court of law (except perhaps in some Islamist circles).

I noted the fairly good historical case for Iraq asserting that Kuwait should have no independent political existence - it was a part of the Ottoman Empire just as were the Provinces of Basra, Bagdad, and Mosul, and in earlier ages had been inseperable from them. Could not an Iraqi nationalist have raised a "moral" issue over this matter? Should it have been dismissed so blithely?

The point here is that there is almost always some space between the questions of "what is moral" (in someone's particular framework) and :what is legal".

Quote:

I've identified my evidence. Where is yours?

It is as elaborated above, and I believe the case is pretty good. Apart from your "moral" assertion, you have not undermined it at all.

I fear I'm never going to catch up on the reading required to make logical assertions backed up by evidence, BUT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION... for just a minute... You CANNOT be patriotic if you wish your country to lose.

PP,

Quote:

You CANNOT be patriotic if you wish your country to lose.

Sure you can, if you think that losing is in the best interests of your country.

Cycloptichorn

DrewDad wrote:

Vigilantism was used as justification for lynchings, too.

You want people running around the countryside shouting "string 'im up" again?

Still trying to learn here. Unless I'm crazy, your fallacy was tough to identify because you committed so many. To help me identify these, I've broken down what you wrote into what I believe it means.

Vigilantes murdered people.
Vigilantism causes murder.
Do you want more murder?

The first step is a simple non sequitur. You assumed that because vigilantes murdered people that vigilantism causes murder. This isn't necessarily so.
***
Next, you assumed your non sequitur-conclusion in your question, which did constitute: Plurium Interrogationum (Compext Question) Example: Do you still beat your wife?

Since you were presupposing your conclusion in your question, I believe I could also accurately cite you for Petitio principii (begging the question)… which in turn fits comfortably in the realm of Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument).

Either I'm crazy, or your short statement is so lacking in logic that I could have just wrote:

(Okay, rip me up now)

(Please help Master Joe!)

Under your theory (and Joe's), the sole difference between a traitor and a patriot is an affirmative act.

Under your theory (and Joe's), the sole difference between a traitor and a patriot is an affirmative act.

Quote:

Under your theory (and Joe's), the sole difference between a traitor and a patriot is an affirmative act.

No, it isn't, at all, Tico.

Cycloptichorn

Let's say you act on your beliefs, and let's also say you are privy to some US military secrets, and through some connections you provide these to Iraqi insurgents who use same against the US military. The reason you do this is because you "want what is best for the US and its citizens," and you are convinced that if you provide secrets to the enemy, the enemy will defeat the US sooner, and in your mind that is what is in the best interests of the US. In doing so, you might think you are a patriot, but in fact you are a traitor. Do you disagree?


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1091015#1091015

If you want the US to lose a war (for whatever reason, but for purposes of clarity, let's suppose it is because you really feel in your heart-of-hearts that losing the war is in the best interests of the US), and you provide military secrets to the wartime enemy, you are a traitor. A traitor that does not take that affirmative step in furtherance of his desires is not a patriot.


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1091464#1091464

Ticomaya wrote:

Under your theory (and Joe's), the sole difference between a traitor and a patriot is an affirmative act.

Actually, the sole difference between someone who does nothing and someone who does something is an affirmative act. That goes for both traitors and patriots.