Saddam Hussein arrested

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

international law is just another method of passive-agressive exploitation and i prefer the law of the jungle to that, thank you very much.

No you don't . International law is extrodinarily important in the world today. Without that much of contract law would be unneccesarily tedious. And there is an one system, but there is no enforcement of it, except by the ICJ (when asked) and states. Treaties are pretty official and functional, wouldn't you think?

that is what im saying. until there is really any enforcement, the law can just be exploited. some can use it the law when it benifits them and ignore when not. it is not functional

treaties are totally different form what im talking about. those exist between individual pairs or groups of nation, not the entire international community.

[Imran Siddiqui]

that is what im saying. until there is really any enforcement, the law can just be exploited. some can use it the law when it benifits them and ignore when not. it is not functiona

Then you should be on the front lines of backing the ICC and other enforcement mechanisms .

treaties are totally different form what im talking about. those exist between individual pairs or groups of nation, not the entire international community.

Treaties ARE international law. And there are plenty and plenty of multi-lateral treaties, such as the 1982 Law of the Seas. Treaties are one of the 3 sources of international law, the other two being custom and general principles of domestic law.

[Kramerman]

Then you should be on the front lines of backing the ICC and other enforcement mechanisms

they are too weak to properly enforce. its basically a someone has to let them enforce. they can practically be ignored. i am no proponent of this.

Treaties ARE international law. And there are plenty and plenty of multi-lateral treaties, such as the 1982 Law of the Seas. Treaties are one of the 3 sources of international law, the other two being custom and general principles of domestic law.

I know this, but this isnt what im talking about! geneva accords, kyoto environment deally, blah blah blah. the only people bound by those treaties are the countries particpating. and treaties are always more specific things... agreements on some issues. Im talking about a comprehensive international law like our national law that ALL nations participate in and the laws are properly enforced so they arent a joke. that does not exist. do you see what im saing now? i htink the hodge podge of treaties, agreements, and informal common law and lack of enforcement is a joke. and until there is a unified international law that is function (which means it must be properly enforced!), i prefer the law of the jungle. simple as that

[Imran Siddiqui]

they are too weak to properly enforce. its basically a someone has to let them enforce. they can practically be ignored. i am no proponent of this.

Then back greater enforcement. They are too weak because member states won't vote for more enforcement powers by the UN. If you want enforcement you have to give up more.

Im talking about a comprehensive international law like our national law that ALL nations participate in and the laws are properly enforced so they arent a joke. that does not exist. do you see what im saing now?

Then back it! Back an enforcable international law. Start by giving the UN much more power.

i htink the hodge podge of treaties, agreements, and informal common law and lack of enforcement is a joke.

Fine, you can, but it is in use in many courtrooms across the world daily. I can tell you in the US, international law is litigated ALL THE TIME! Basically graduating law school without taking international law is like graduating with out taking constitutional law these days.

[Kramerman]

Then back greater enforcement. They are too weak because member states won't vote for more enforcement powers by the UN. If you want enforcement you have to give up more.

they would need a ufide law code to enforce first, then i would

Then back it! Back an enforcable international law. Start by giving the UN much more power.

i would if i could

[Donegeal]

(just wanted to get my approvel in before the thread got closed)

[Imran Siddiqui]

they would need a ufide law code to enforce first, then i would

They already have plenty. The Geneva Conventions, multitudes of UN resolutions, the UN Charter, etc.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

they would need a ufide law code to enforce first, then i would

They already have plenty. The Geneva Conventions, multitudes of UN resolutions, the UN Charter, etc.

that is a hodgepodge of laws, not unifide a unified law code

[CharlesBHoff]

The captive of the Iraq willnot end the resistance in Iraq to us, history proof that gurgle warfare can go on for a very long time. The people of Wale resist English rule for over 200 years.

[Kramerman]

gurgle warfare?
are they brushing our teeth to death?

"watch out! Its Listerine!"

[Imran Siddiqui]

that is a hodgepodge of laws, not unifide a unified law code

Um... Kramerman? That means you believe the US to be a hodgepodge of laws (state laws, federal laws, common law, etc) instead of a unified law code. Yes, they are under the Constitution, but the UN is under the UN Charter.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

that is a hodgepodge of laws, not unifide a unified law code

Um... Kramerman? That means you believe the US to be a hodgepodge of laws (state laws, federal laws, common law, etc) instead of a unified law code. Yes, they are under the Constitution, but the UN is under the UN Charter.

that is much different. our system of enforcement and such is built upon our federal system of laws and our constitution (via supreme court) can make the final say over contridictions.... effectively making a very elastic unifide law.

this is not the case internationally. arms treatise between some countries are not made with rivals environmental treaties in mind, for example. and who is to make up for the lapses in the gaps of the hodgepodge of treaties? who is to rule on contridictions? what would give them that power?
etc etc... *sigh* that does not exist on an international scale! do you not understand me?

sure, we can deal in law with other countries on a case by case basis according to the treaties we have wth them, bu that is hardly unified whenit must be case by case. and even the the treaties only define so much. there is no legal homogeny internationaly like what we have nationally

[Drake Tungsten]

Despite the numerous assertions to the contrary here on Poly, the Pentagon is saying that documents found with Saddam Hussein indicate that he was linked with the insurgency underway inside Iraq.

The violence occurred Monday as U.S. officials said documents found with ex-Iraqi leader Saddam over the weekend show he was linked to the insurgency against coalition forces in Iraq.

Pentagon officials say they are focusing their interrogations of Saddam on the insurgency connection. They add that Saddam's arrest has already paid off, with papers found with him leading to the arrest of at least one Iraqi resistance leader.

The documents detailed a meeting of resistance cell leaders -- and included their names, officials said.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Yet more proof that one should wait like, I don't know, a day or so before jumping to conclusions.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Because I find that the dictatorships United States installed in other countries is something that I believe is not necessary for our foreign policy.

America didn't install Hussein.

You are right. Of course that won't matter to the die hard America haters.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't know about that former nutcase in the Congo (Kabila, not Mobutu).

Kabila had an age long feud with Mobutu, so the affair was internal in the first place. It seemed very strongly that the US wanted to get influence in resource-rich Zaire, and the aftermath of the Rwanda crisis allowed just that.

The US approached Kabila as he progressed, and they believed Kabila would be their boy. I am not aware of any proven substantial help to Kabila from the US, but that wouldn't surprise me at all.

OTOH, France certainly didn't want Kabila and his US connections to get power over Zaire, and France supported its boy, Mobutu, like it always did. Only when the fall of Mobutu was obvious did we go all-smiles with Kabila.

In the end, once he was in power, Kabila gave a nice big finger to the westerners, and wrecked his country like he wanted. Unfortunately for him (but even öore unfortunately for the population), the disappearance of western support made it easy for every neighboring country to wage war in DRC's jungles

[Agathon]

Thanks Spiff.

[Ramo]

Invading Iraq was intended to force Iraq to get in line. If other states see that as a message and decide 'to get in line', then that is just a positive bonus to all this.

I doubt we can maintain a friendly regime in Iraq. It's still fairly likely Iraq will degenerate into a civil war when all's said in done, and the winner of that civil war will probably not comfortably stay in line with the US anyways. If it doesn't degenerate into a civil war, the Shia majority would elect a gov't more friendly with Iran than the US (Sadr certainly is extremely pro-Iran, and I wouldn't describe Sistani as more pro-US than pro-Iran).

No, Iraq was a demonstration to the other states of the world of what we're willing to do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

that is much different. our system of enforcement and such is built upon our federal system of laws and our constitution (via supreme court) can make the final say over contridictions.... effectively making a very elastic unifide law.

this is not the case internationally. arms treatise between some countries are not made with rivals environmental treaties in mind, for example. and who is to make up for the lapses in the gaps of the hodgepodge of treaties? who is to rule on contridictions? what would give them that power?
etc etc... *sigh* that does not exist on an international scale! do you not understand me?

sure, we can deal in law with other countries on a case by case basis according to the treaties we have wth them, bu that is hardly unified whenit must be case by case. and even the the treaties only define so much. there is no legal homogeny internationaly like what we have nationally

See, no I don't understand you because you say international law isn't real law by ignoring all the parts where it is real law. There are many 'unified' laws internationally. The main problem is how to enforce it. I mean, really, most people agreed the Milosevic was violating international law (only some wacked out Greeks, Serbs, and super-lefties didn't) and most people agree that Saddam has violated international law. If there is such consensus doesn't that mean there is a unified international law in this area? The problem is enforcement of that law, which most everyone knows to exist.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And you complain about Bush-bashers .

I'm not exclusively bashing Bush -- this is what politicians of both parties have done, historically during the Cold War.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

(, and I wouldn't describe Sistani as more pro-US than pro-Iran).

.

why not? he clearly wants to move the Najaf Hawza out from under the influence of the Iranian seminaries, a threat to the Iranian mullahs. And he seems to dislike the notion of Ayatollahs being dragged into the nitty gritty of daily politics. (Of course even several Iranian ayatollahs are disillusioned with the Iranian system)
And he seems to recognize the nationalism of the Iraqi Shia. He may not be "pro-US" but hes not likely to subordinate Iraq to Iran, and he seems willing to support some form of Iraqi democracy. Thats a win.

[Ramo]

I'm not saying it's not a win. Just that we wouldn't have a loyal client state. Sistani is certainly no US stooge. He wouldn't back any of Washington's agressive posturing with Tehran.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
I'm not saying it's not a win. Just that we wouldn't have a loyal client state. Sistani is certainly no US stooge. He wouldn't back any of Washington's agressive posturing with Tehran.

Well not with great enthusiasm, anyway. And probably wont support recognizing Israel (which Chalabi and the Kurds will support) etc. So? No worse than Afghanistan, say. Still a useful part of "Arab civilization version 2.0"

[Ming]

That was quick to the 500 limit. Please continue this at:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...hreadid=104319