quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee



Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill, and Field Marshal Montgomery, all lived with the ghosts of the Somme. Binyyameen Netanyahu, lives with the ghosts of Auschwitz.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

So the Brits are worried about their oil again... Didn't they make some back room deal with Saddam too? Fuck the UK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

So the Brits are worried about their oil again... Didn't they make some back room deal with Saddam too? Fuck the UK

I recall from my history classes another group, bent on world domination and destroying the Jews, that the British tried to appease.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I believe she's referring to the Nazi's, Mike. Google "Chamberlain," for a refresher.

quote:

FMRFGOPGAL

quote:



ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Should international law prevail on this issue?

Yep... Iran should be strung up for threarening the nuclear proliferation treaty.

Bartender. Another scotch and Iranian heavy water please.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee



Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill, and Field Marshal Montgomery, all lived with the ghosts of the Somme. Binyyameen Netanyahu, lives with the ghosts of Auschwitz.

You know, that's just a beautifully written post. Just beautiful. I really liked that!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

FMRFGOPGAL

quote:



ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Should international law prevail on this issue?

Yep... Iran should be strung up for threarening the nuclear proliferation treaty.

Bartender. Another scotch and Iranian heavy water please.

FYI, Iran is a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty and in full standing with all its obligations under that treaty. Iran does not possess nuclear weapons nor is it believed to be building weapons by the IAEA, any Western Intelligence Agency, or Mossad, the US Military, the Israeli Military etc
OTOH, Israel is nuclear armed and refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Time you found a better source for your information than your local bartender. If you wish to acquaint yourself with some facts on this issue, you will find these sites far more reliable sources: http://www.iranfact.org/ or http://www.fair.org
Those sites pour cold water on all the scary myths your post suggests you have swallowed hook line and sinker.

quote:

When the United States has a significant presidential candidate who doesn't understand even the geography of the Middle East, would you expect any better or more intricate political knowledge out of the lumpenbourgeoisie who support him?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

When the United States has a significant presidential candidate who doesn't understand even the geography of the Middle East, would you expect any better or more intricate political knowledge out of the lumpenbourgeoisie who support him?

I did pose the question in the OP: Should international law prevail on this issue?

Not a pipsqueak of a response from any of usual Right Wing hawks to that question. No indication that they are even aware international law exists and might, just might, have some bearing on an issue such as one nation launching 'pre-emptive' (read: aggressive) military strikes on another. No indication that they have any idea who is trashing the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Despite their usually feverish enthusiasm for strictly enforcing law and order domestically,it appears they couldn't give two hoots for the application of international law, for enforcing that law on all nations.

Do they know that international law actually exists?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

When the United States has a significant presidential candidate who doesn't understand even the geography of the Middle East, would you expect any better or more intricate political knowledge out of the lumpenbourgeoisie who support him?

I did pose the question in the OP: Should international law prevail on this issue?
Not a pipsqueak of a response from any of usual Right Wing hawks to that question. No indication that they are even aware international law exists and might, just might, have some bearing on an issue such as one nation launching 'pre-emptive' (read: aggressive) military strikes on another. No indication that they have any idea who is trashing the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Despite their usually feverish enthusiasm for strictly enforcing law and order domestically, it appears they couldn't give two hoots for the application of international law, for enforcing that law on all nations.
Do they know that international law actually exists and it is binding on all nations, not just those who are in the US's good books? Do they favour international anarchy instead?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

The "illegality" is merely a convenient fiction, if the English thought there was some advantageous reason to get militarily involved in Iran they certainly would as their history demonstrates.

And the worst "hawks" in the United States are often the center-left, as United States history demonstrates.

And what passes for "international law" is usually what ever the Anglo-Europeans find convenient at the moment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

The "illegality" is merely a convenient fiction, if the English thought there was some advantageous reason to get militarily involved in Iran they certainly would as their history demonstrates.

And the worst "hawks" in the United States are often the center-left, as United States history demonstrates.

And what passes for "international law" is usually what ever the Anglo-Europeans find convenient at the moment.

Thats bullshit. The UK wont make the mistake of getting involved in anything not sanctioned by the UN. Even if for his own reasons, Cameron doesnt wish to take the route Blair took.

quote:

Who is the arbiter of said "International Law?" Who writes it? If a Nation is in violation of International Law, who is the enforcer?

quote:

Yes, International Law should be followed. International Law should be upheld. International Law should also be enforced. If the US is the violator, the US should bear the consequences of the infraction (and the consequences should be the same for the US as they would be for any other nation).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I'd be interested to know what "advantageous reason" there was for getting involved in the 'State's last middle eastern dust up, come to that: all we got out of that was the tube bombings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

The "illegality" is merely a convenient fiction, if the English thought there was some advantageous reason to get militarily involved in Iran they certainly would as their history demonstrates.

And the worst "hawks" in the United States are often the center-left, as United States history demonstrates.

And what passes for "international law" is usually what ever the Anglo-Europeans find convenient at the moment.

Thats bullshit. The UK wont make the mistake of getting involved in anything not sanctioned by the UN. Even if for his own reasons, Cameron doesnt wish to take the route Blair took.

quote:

My understanding is that for a pre-emptive strike to be justified under those laws, there must be a "clear and present threat". The legal advice to the UK Govt reflects this (see the OP). As things stand currently, Iran does not pose a "clear and present threat" to anybody. Ergo, a pre-emptive strike would be illegal under relevant international law.