West should be more "tolerant" of holocaust deniers...

[Glorified Ape]

And many view it as a good thing.  Either way, I'm glad we agree that western states get a massively disproportionate ammount of negative attention when engaged in any sort of violent behaviour.

Indeed, agreed.

Not really.  It's more like an officer saying "either do PT properly on your own time, or I'm gonna come out and run you into the ground".  You're free to ignore him, disrespect him, and call him a hypocrite, but next week, when you're doing a 25km ruck-run with said officer, just remember you brought it on yourself.

The primary difference being that the troops are in the military of their own volition and thus recognize the officer as having legitimate authority. For the West to assume some rightful authority over the rest of the world is dictatorial and paternalistic to say the least.

Western states aren't perfect, no, but comparing the human rights record of a country like Canada, the US, or Israel, to states like Palestine, Iran, Iraq....well, you'd have to be a few rounds short of a full load to even make the comparison.  Could you imagine that sort of logic in Canada?  Some guy gets arrested for robbing a bank....and suddenly there's 200 university students protesting outside the jail because the officer who arrested him was seen jay-walking.

Yes, the comparison is ridiculous. You give a good analogy, but it leaves out that the police officer also acts as jury and executioner, arrested the guy outside his jurisdiction, and had a prior working relationship with the guy in which the officer paid him substantial sums of money and provided other assistance in order to secure influence for personal benefit in the criminal underworld.

And this would take....how long exactly?  A hundred years maybe?  In the meantime, attacks against Israel would intensify.  So what you're saying is that Israel should pull out of the "occupied" territories, thereby increasing the ammount of risk to their own citizens, on the off chance that maybe in a century or so the Palestinians might have a change of heart.  Please.  You're better than that.

It's not an either/or scenario - Israel is just as capable of maintaining its security without occupying Palestinian lands and most definitely without colonizing them. The new Palestinian Authority isn't what it was under Arafat and I think some progress is being made. It needs to improve its policing, but given the fact that Israel ties both its hands behind its back at any possible opportunity, one can't expect leaps and bounds unless Israel commits to actually facilitating Palestinian independence.

Also keep in mind that a VERY large portion of the Palestinian population beleives that ALL of Israel is or should be Palestinian territory.  Giving them back the "occupied lands" won't do jack; those individuals will simply see it as a sign that the glorious PLO is defeating the heathen Zionists, and will assume that if they redouble their efforts they'll eventualy succeed in pushing Israel into the sea and getting all of "their" land back.

Well, in all honesty it is Palestinian territory but what some people believe and what will be are two different things. As I said, there'll ALWAYS be groups that hate Israel for simply existing but I wouldn't count them as the majority. I think most Palestinians would be quite happy simply to be left alone by Israel and be allowed to develop their own country.

AND keep in mind that other Muslim states have a vested interest in maintaining the conflict between Israel and Palestine.  Even assuming that the majority of Palestinian people had a change of heart overnight, the terrorists organizations could always find funding and personnel through outher nations.

This is true, but doesn't mean that Israel shouldn't allow Palestinians autonomy. Israel has had no qualms about attacking other nations willy-nilly whenever the thought crosses their minds so I don't see why they wouldn't just continue it after a Palestinian state has formed.

So with all those things in mind, explain to me how exactly withdrawing from the "occupied" territories will gain ANYTHING for Israel.

As I said, because it removes 90% of the impetus behind the intifada and associated problems. It's not a magic cure-all but it's a start and at the end of the day, the fact still remains that Israel is going to have to grant independence to the Palestinians at some point. The longer the occupation/colonisation goes on, the more hatred is going to build up (and rightfully so).

I see.  And because Canada and the US have both targeted civilians in the past as well, we also don't have any sort of moral superiority, right?

In what context? If we were fighting for our independence from an oppressive occupying force, then I'd accept any and all means necessary to realise that end and make things as painful as humanly possible for the occupying state. Britain did the same thing when their nation was threatened by Germany. The Dutch and French resistances did the same thing to the Germans, even killing their own civilians if they collaborated. Were they capable of bombing German cafes and nighclubs, I'm sure they'd have done it. The IRA has had no qualms about killing for its independence and one wonders if the independence movement would have received the political attention it did if the English hadn't had to seek some political solution to exploding mailboxes. Even Israel has had its share of terrorists, both during its independence movement and afterwards but we seem to conveniently forget that fact whenever the person doing the killing worships Allah instead of Jehova (which are the same god, anyway). Likewise the Christian Phalangist militias in Lebanon had no problems slaughtering civilian Palestinians (with Israeli support to boot).

Are we (the West) morally superior in that context, no? I'm sure we'd be engaging in similar acts were in the same position with the same motivation. Perhaps not suicide bombing, but terrorism most definitely. I don't view morality as being an all-encompassing field - there are different morals for different contexts. I don't view polygamist Mormons as being morally inferior because they have multiple wives. If Mormons starved their children and beat them regularly as a part of their faith, I'd view them as morally unpreferable in that context. Moral superiority is a dangerous concept as morality is largely relative. As long as the people of a group agree on a moral framework and don't harm other groups, I have no problem with them nor do I believe them inferior. I may not like what they do, but I have no right to dictate morality as though there was one moral code by which everyone is supposed to live.

....I'm not even going to attempt to devine what aspect of Israel you're insulting with that statement.

I was insulting Israel's colonial practices like moving settlers onto land that isn't theirs, bulldozing Palestinian homes, etc.

No one here is saying that other Western nations have never targeted civilians. However, this board has shifted to being primarily about Israel. The US has trampled human rights in the past, as have the French in Algeria, the UK in pretty much any former colony. And of course, almost every single regime in the Middle East with the possible exception of Iran under Mossadegh. The list pretty comprises every nation that has ever existed. But that isn't the point. Israel is supposed to be the beacon of democracy in the Middle East, and it has vast support from the West particularly the United States. I think someone else already mentioned this on this thread, but you cannot point to other examples of past wrong doing to absolve a particular case. I am sure that most people on this board are aware of other human rights abuses and state terrorism committed by many other nations, but at this point, we are not discussing them. If people insist on comparisons I would argue that if there were three "tiers" of human rights abuses, nations like Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq under Hussein would be in tier 1, or the worst offenders.In this category, nations openly restrict free speech, imprison political opponents, and execute/torture dissenters. Nations such as Israel and the United States would be tier 2. Nations in this category would feature free speech domestically, have free markets, but abroad would prosecute illegal wars, carry out illegal assassinations, stage coups of democratically (and otherwise) elected governments, and generally not practice what they preach at home. Nations such as Canada, Sweden, and others would be tier 3. These nations, while definitely being guilty of past crimes, and still being guilty of current foreign/domestic policy that could be seen as morally wrong, are not overtly committing crimes that are defined as such by the UN and international law. This being said, there is a definite linkage between morally questionable policies and economic/military status in the world, at least in a Western sense. If Canada was a more powerful nation, I have no doubt that our human rights abuses would increase in a parallel manner.

Excellent post, though I'll hazard to guess that you're going to catch serious flak over putting Canada in a better category than the US. Be prepared to suffer the "you anti-American bum" assault en masse.  :warstory:

Incidentally, funny you should point out Mossadeq - who was it that backed the coup that threw him out, again? Ohhhhhhh yeah, that's right - the US and Britain. Good thing they got him booted - the government they have now is far preferable to that pesky secular, pro-democratic one Mossadeq was running.

 

[48Highlander]

If people insist on comparisons I would argue that if there were three "tiers" of human rights abuses, nations like Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq under Hussein would be in tier 1, or the worst offenders.In this category, nations openly restrict free speech, imprison political opponents, and execute/torture dissenters. Nations such as Israel and the United States would be tier 2. Nations in this category would feature free speech domestically, have free markets, but abroad would prosecute illegal wars, carry out illegal assassinations, stage coups of democratically (and otherwise) elected governments, and generally not practice what they preach at home. Nations such as Canada, Sweden, and others would be tier 3. These nations, while definitely being guilty of past crimes, and still being guilty of current foreign/domestic policy that could be seen as morally wrong, are not overtly committing crimes that are defined as such by the UN and international law. This being said, there is a definite linkage between morally questionable policies and economic/military status in the world, at least in a Western sense. If Canada was a more powerful nation, I have no doubt that our human rights abuses would increase in a parallel manner.

Funny.  I'd really LOVE to hear you attempt to explain what exactly constitutes an "illegal war"  :  Or if you somehow manage that, to explain when either the US or Israel has been involved in one.

Methinks thou hast put too much faith in Michael Moore's teachings.

 

[combatcamera]

48Highlander,

Have you ever been to Israel?

 

[48Highlander]

48Highlander,

Have you ever been to Israel?

If you wish to exchange tourism information, PM me instead of interrupting the discussion

 

[combatcamera]

Seriously, have you ever been there?

 

[combatcamera]

48Highlander,

My guess is that you've never even been to the Middle East.  Am I correct?

 

[Glorified Ape]

Funny.  I'd really LOVE to hear you attempt to explain what exactly constitutes an "illegal war"  :  Or if you somehow manage that, to explain when either the US or Israel has been involved in one.

Methinks thou hast put too much faith in Michael Moore's teachings.

An illegal war, by international law, is a war of aggression wherein one state attacks another state without first being attacked - like Germany in WWII, Iraq in the Gulf War, the US in 1812, the US in Vietnam, the US in Grenada, the US in Cuba, the US in Iraq, Israel in the Six Day War, and similar acts of aggression such as the Israeli bombing of Iraq in 1981, the Israeli bombing of Syria in 2003, the Israeli bombing of Tunisia in 1985, etc.

The proscription against aggressive war came out of the Nuremberg Trials which, ironically, were spearheaded by the US. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal states that:

Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, either as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

"The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

"(a) Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing ***"

"Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan."

Funny tendency those tables have of turning...

 

[48Highlander]

?

Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, either as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

Last I checked neither Israel nor the US has acted in the interest of European Axis countries 

And last I checked the US was in Vietnam in order to take over from the French and assist the South Vietnamese, therefore it was a legitemate action, much like in South Korea.

As well, as far as I remember, the first Gulf War was not considered "illegal", and it never realy ended.  The lack of warfare during the decade in between GW1 and GW2 was a conditional ceasefire, and Sadam violated the conditions of that ceasefire numerous times.  Even if you could argue that wars could ever be considered illegal, you certainly coundn't argue that it would be illegal to resume hostilities due to one side not upholding the terms of the ceasefire.  That's without even mentioning the fact that numerous UN mandates implied that a second invasion was in the works if Sadam didn't co-operate.

So your quote is irrelevant, and your examples are of questionable accuracy at best.

 

[combatcamera]

48Highlander,

You seem to be quite the expert on Middle East affairs, considering you've never been there.

 

[TCBF]

"An illegal war, by international law, is a war of aggression wherein one state attacks another state without first being attacked - like Germany in WWII, Iraq in the Gulf War, the US in 1812, the US in Vietnam, the US in Grenada, the US in Cuba, the US in Iraq, Israel in the Six Day War, and similar acts of aggression such as the Israeli bombing of Iraq in 1981, the Israeli bombing of Syria in 2003, the Israeli bombing of Tunisia in 1985, etc."

Hey GA, don't forget the guys on the left side of the bus.. the Russian invasion of Poland in 1921, of Finland during WW2, the NK invasion of SK, the Chinese invasion of SK, the Chinese invasion of Tibet, the Russian invasion of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania,   the Iraqui invasion of Kuwait, etc.

You have a bunch of Commie professors or something?  I sure hope my tax dollars aren't supporting such brain-washing!

;D

Tom

 

[combatcamera]

Tom,

You're not from Thunder Bay are you?

 

[Kilo_302]

And last I checked the US was in Vietnam in order to take over from the French and assist the South Vietnamese, therefore it was a legitemate action, much like in South Korea.

Vietnam would have been legal if the South Vietnamese government that "invited" the United States to intervene had been legitmate, and had not been installed by the United States. Since it was not, the war in Vietnam is technically an invasion. You bring up the fact that the United States "took over from the French". The French were a colonial power, so if the United States indeed took over for them, it merely replaced a repressive colonial power. Not something to be proud of, considering how often the United States has spoken out against colonialism, as well as the history of the US as being a colony itself. When you call Vietnam a legitimate action, consider that 2 million Vietnamese, the vast majority of civilians died, most of them in massive indiscriminate air raids. There was actually a deliberate effort by US forces to drive civilians into "strategic hamlets" by bombing them out of the countryside. Legitimate action indeed.

 

[Glorified Ape]

?

Last I checked neither Israel nor the US has acted in the interest of European Axis countries 

The Nuremberg Trials were much of the foundation of the international legal regime which sprouted after World War II, including its institutionalisation in the UN. The UN Charter built on the concepts developed at Nuremberg, to which the US, Israel, Canada, etc. are signatories. Furthermore, the abstention from aggressive war (and genocide) are peremptory norms in international law, meaning that one does not have to be party to any treaty/etc. to be subject to them.

And last I checked the US was in Vietnam in order to take over from the French and assist the South Vietnamese, therefore it was a legitemate action, much like in South Korea.

The French and Vietnamese were already in peace talks (the Geneva Peace Accords) long before the conflict between the US and North Vietnam. The division of North and South along the 17th parallel was temporary and contingent upon political resolution through the accords. Thus the internal political strife was exactly that - internal. Neither the Northern or Southern governments were legitimately representative of Vietnam. The US didn't like the level of communist influence that unification would entail, and so started a counter-unification movement under Diem. When Diem didn't get the support he needed, the US aided a military coup to overthrow him (after which he and his brother were assassinated). Then there were the South Vietnamese and US actions along the North-South line, in response to which the Gulf of Tonkin happened. After that, the US was at war with North Vietnam, for all intents and purposes. The North didn't initiate hostilities, the US did.

As well, as far as I remember, the first Gulf War was not considered "illegal", and it never realy ended.

Iraq's actions against Kuwait in the Gulf War were illegal, hence why the war had UN approval. I didn't mean the Allies were acting illegally, I meant Iraq as it attacked Kuwait without sufficient provocation.

The lack of warfare during the decade in between GW1 and GW2 was a conditional ceasefire, and Sadam violated the conditions of that ceasefire numerous times.  Even if you could argue that wars could ever be considered illegal, you certainly coundn't argue that it would be illegal to resume hostilities due to one side not upholding the terms of the ceasefire.  That's without even mentioning the fact that numerous UN mandates implied that a second invasion was in the works if Sadam didn't co-operate.

The ceasefire (UN resolution 687) was brought into force under the auspices of the United Nations (more specifically the Security Council). There's no provision in the ceasefire for individual states to resume hostilities without the authorization of the Security Council - it makes sense seeing as how the Security Council (and UN by extension) holds authority over the ceasefire. The British Foreign Secretary had stated that there was no extant legal basis for action and another British diplomat admitted as much (though in argument for action):

"Among ourselves, we operate on the basis of laws and open co-operative security," said Robert Cooper. "But when dealing with more old-fashioned kinds of states outside the postmodern continent of Europe, we need to revert to rougher methods of an earlier era - force, pre-emptive attack, deception," he wrote.

"Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle".

I won't bother to touch on the idiocy and hypocrisy of his statement as it pertains to the application of law, as it's painfully evident.

So your quote is irrelevant, and your examples are of questionable accuracy at best.

You didn't touch on many of my examples and the quote is far from irrelevant. While the Treaty of Westphalia may have established the the sanctity of sovereignty, it was Nuremberg and the UN Charter (building thereon) that really dealt explicitly with aggression. Robert Jackson (US Supreme Court Justice and Chief Prosecutor at Nuremberg) said ""No political or economic situation can justify [the crime of aggression]... If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." The International Court which presided over Nuremberg said "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Not surprisingly the UN Charter (building on Nuremberg and a seminal document in international law) states:

"Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; "

It defines aggression as "...the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition." (Resolution 3314, Article 1)

And states that "The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression." (Article 2).

Being a signatory to the UN Charter (and thus recognizing the force and effect of the laws set out therein), the US, Israel, and any other signatory either has to recognize its subordinacy to international law or admit to hypocrisy and being diplomatically non-credible.

"An illegal war, by international law, is a war of aggression wherein one state attacks another state without first being attacked - like Germany in WWII, Iraq in the Gulf War, the US in 1812, the US in Vietnam, the US in Grenada, the US in Cuba, the US in Iraq, Israel in the Six Day War, and similar acts of aggression such as the Israeli bombing of Iraq in 1981, the Israeli bombing of Syria in 2003, the Israeli bombing of Tunisia in 1985, etc."

Hey GA, don't forget the guys on the left side of the bus.. the Russian invasion of Poland in 1921, of Finland during WW2, the NK invasion of SK, the Chinese invasion of SK, the Chinese invasion of Tibet, the Russian invasion of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania,   the Iraqui invasion of Kuwait, etc.

Absolutely - I mentioned Iraq vs. Kuwait (I referred to it as the Gulf War). The focus of the point was more our (the West's) difficulty in abiding by the standards that we, ourselves, set. Since the Soviet Union is now defunct and China has never (since Mao anyway) abided by this standard (nor formed it), I don't see them as particularly relevant.

You're right though - China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc. are all severely sub-standard in their practices. Last I checked, though, they weren't really behaving as the world's self-appointed leader and moral authority. If we want to lead by example, we're going to have to abide by our own standards first.

You have a bunch of Commie professors or something?  I sure hope my tax dollars aren't supporting such brain-washing!

;D

Tom

GAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!! Why does it always have to be about the professors? My professors offer a distinct lack of opinion, as a habit. I know you're being facetious, it just always seems to come back to my being at school. Believe it or not, I decide my own opinions. I'm a big boy now and I'm quite capable of brainwashing myself, thank you very much. ;D

 

[48Highlander]

Vietnam would have been legal if the South Vietnamese government that "invited" the United States to intervene had been legitmate, and had not been installed by the United States. Since it was not, the war in Vietnam is technically an invasion. You bring up the fact that the United States "took over from the French". The French were a colonial power, so if the United States indeed took over for them, it merely replaced a repressive colonial power. Not something to be proud of, considering how often the United States has spoken out against colonialism, as well as the history of the US as being a colony itself. When you call Vietnam a legitimate action, consider that 2 million Vietnamese, the vast majority of civilians died, most of them in massive indiscriminate air raids. There was actually a deliberate effort by US forces to drive civilians into "strategic hamlets" by bombing them out of the countryside. Legitimate action indeed.

2 million bombed eh?  Sorta like the "300,000" killed in Iraq right?  ;D

2 million vietnamese probably WERE killed as a result of the war, however, a good chunk of that number was a result of NVA actions AFTER the US left.  Seems the communist government that took over didn't much like free thinkers, scholars, and disidents.  Big surprise there.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Seems the communist government that took over didn't much like... scholars...

Gee, kinda like alot of posters on Army.ca where scholars are concerned, eh?  ;D

 

[combatcamera]

Hmmm?  My guess is you kids haven't even been to the countries you seem to be experts about.

 

[48Highlander]

Gee, kinda like alot of posters on Army.ca where scholars are concerned, eh?  ;D

damn edumacated fellers think they know allthing 

The Nuremberg Trials were much of the foundation of the international legal regime which sprouted after World War II, including its institutionalisation in the UN. The UN Charter built on the concepts developed at Nuremberg, to which the US, Israel, Canada, etc. are signatories. Furthermore, the abstention from aggressive war (and genocide) are peremptory norms in international law, meaning that one does not have to be party to any treaty/etc. to be subject to them.

Right, but what you quoted was not part of the UN charter, so it doesn't really support what you were saying.  Quote the right document next time!  ;D

As far as "aggressive war" goes, is there really any other kind?   I understand what you're saying, but it's too difficult to define exactly what constitutes an "illegal war".  In some cases it's pretty clear-cut, but in other circumstances, such as the most recent US invasion of Iraq, and our own assistance in their invasion of Afghanistan...well, there's a lot of room for interpretation.  And the problem is that most of the "judgements" are based on little more than popular opinion.  Plus the problem of enforcement.  International law is a joke unless there's an impartial body which can enforce it.  The UN is neither impartial, nor can it enforce it's own decisions, so it's rather difficult to put any faith in it's laws.

The French and Vietnamese were already in peace talks (the Geneva Peace Accords) long before the conflict between the US and North Vietnam. The division of North and South along the 17th parallel was temporary and contingent upon political resolution through the accords. Thus the internal political strife was exactly that - internal. Neither the Northern or Southern governments were legitimately representative of Vietnam. The US didn't like the level of communist influence that unification would entail, and so started a counter-unification movement under Diem. When Diem didn't get the support he needed, the US aided a military coup to overthrow him (after which he and his brother were assassinated). Then there were the South Vietnamese and US actions along the North-South line, in response to which the Gulf of Tonkin happened. After that, the US was at war with North Vietnam, for all intents and purposes. The North didn't initiate hostilities, the US did.

See, there's a good illustration of why it's so difficult to define "illegal" as far as warfare goes.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the north had been receiving support from both the USSR and China for quite a while before the US came on the scene.  The US didn't like the idea of another country going Red, so they stepped in to back their own candidate.  Now you can define that as colonialism, or as an "aggresive war", or as an act of self-defence.  A fairly strong argument can be made for any of the above, but once again, as long as there isn't an imparital body to rule on the legality of the situation, and to enforce it's decision, there's no way to say which definition is right.

Iraq's actions against Kuwait in the Gulf War were illegal, hence why the war had UN approval. I didn't mean the Allies were acting illegally, I meant Iraq as it attacked Kuwait without sufficient provocation.

The ceasefire (UN resolution 687) was brought into force under the auspices of the United Nations (more specifically the Security Council). There's no provision in the ceasefire for individual states to resume hostilities without the authorization of the Security Council - it makes sense seeing as how the Security Council (and UN by extension) holds authority over the ceasefire. The British Foreign Secretary had stated that there was no extant legal basis for action and another British diplomat admitted as much (though in argument for action):

I'll have to do some more research into that, but I'll accept your explanation for now.  I'm really not familiar with all the details of the ceasefire.  I really don't understand why the US would agree to have the UN lay out the terms for the ceasefire.

You didn't touch on many of my examples and the quote is far from irrelevant. While the Treaty of Westphalia may have established the the sanctity of sovereignty, it was Nuremberg and the UN Charter (building thereon) that really dealt explicitly with aggression. Robert Jackson (US Supreme Court Justice and Chief Prosecutor at Nuremberg) said ""No political or economic situation can justify [the crime of aggression]... If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." The International Court which presided over Nuremberg said "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Not surprisingly the UN Charter (building on Nuremberg and a seminal document in international law) states:

"Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; "

It defines aggression as "...the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition." (Resolution 3314, Article 1)

And states that "The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression." (Article 2).

Being a signatory to the UN Charter (and thus recognizing the force and effect of the laws set out therein), the US, Israel, and any other signatory either has to recognize its subordinacy to international law or admit to hypocrisy and being diplomatically non-credible.

Leaving aside the fact that the UN carries out it purpose very selectively, it seems that by that definition ALL wars are "illegal".  Which brings me right back to the absurdity of the concept.  If the body charged with enforcing these laws cannot stay impartial and cannot enforce it's own decisions, then these laws become irrelevant.  Imagine if our courts always sided with individuals of a certain ethnic background, and our police were unable to enforce the law.  What purpose would our judicial system serve?  The country would fall back on vigilantism, and the people would make and apply their own rules as they saw fit.  The "law" would cease to be relevant.

Absolutely - I mentioned Iraq vs. Kuwait (I referred to it as the Gulf War). The focus of the point was more our (the West's) difficulty in abiding by the standards that we, ourselves, set. Since the Soviet Union is now defunct and China has never (since Mao anyway) abided by this standard (nor formed it), I don't see them as particularly relevant.

You're right though - China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc. are all severely sub-standard in their practices. Last I checked, though, they weren't really behaving as the world's self-appointed leader and moral authority. If we want to lead by example, we're going to have to abide by our own standards first.

Bull.  Sure, "we" have to be consistant, but we don't have to follow all the rules that we set.  A police officer has the right to search you if he beleives you may be violating the law.  The ETF reserves the right to break down your doors and charge your house with weapons drawn.  Yet we do not give the same rights to the average citizen.  The body in power will always give itself powers which those it proposes to regulate do not have, and the same rules apply on the global level.  Beleiving otherwise is delusional at best.  So the only thing that "we" have to do is ensure that we have good cause when we invade another country.  Wether the rest of the world agrees or not is irrelevant, although it's a good idea to seek the advice and support of other global powers.

 

[combatcamera]

48Highlander,

What a BS artist you are.

 

[48Highlander]

It was actually quite an interesting discussion to read, until that.

Got any facts/points to add to back up that statement?

Here's the entirety of his contribution to this thread:

48Highlander,

Have you ever been to Israel?

Seriously, have you ever been there?

48Highlander,

My guess is that you've never even been to the Middle East.  Am I correct?

48Highlander,

You seem to be quite the expert on Middle East affairs, considering you've never been there.

Tom,

You're not from Thunder Bay are you?

Hmmm?  My guess is you kids haven't even been to the countries you seem to be experts about.

48Highlander,

What a BS artist you are.

Great eh?  Looks like Combat Camera is about as usefull and informative on these forums as it is when they publish articles.

 

[TCBF]

"I'm a big boy now and I'm quite capable of brainwashing myself, ..."

- Rather successfully, too, evidently.

;D

"Tom,

You're not from Thunder Bay are you?"

- Does it show?  What gave it away?  My lumberjack shirt, braided armpits, or "Easy-Rider" (TM) rifle rack?



Tom