Laws exist to protect the weak and the vulnerable. If international laws are meaningless and only good conceptually, we can say the same thing to domestic laws. If one your business rivals illegally ruined your video game business and then remained free and at large, via various means, by bribing the law enforcement officers, intimidating the potential prosecutors, etc., wouldn't you cry injustice? Winners act in their own interest. Winners take all. Why blame the winners? To hell with laws.
While I don't agree with creepyfloyd, DaDakota you're spewing a boatload of misinformation with this post. International law while a difficult concept to comprehend, has existed in some form for as long as there have been nation states. It pre-dates the UN and exists independently of it. It's not really necessary to go into it here but suffice it to say, you're just plain wrong to say it doesn't exist. (also, as an aside, once the Senate ratifies an international treaty, domestically, it becomes the law of the land, or at least that is what I was taught in law school) Likewise, economic sanctions have not been proven to be ineffective. If you're referring to Iraq - it's the exact opposite, they've been proven to be very effective. They cripple economies when applied with consistency, and severely weaken the target states.
My point is that International laws, are not real, and have no teeth. They are not recognized as real "LAWS" but more as guidelines. By this I mean countries choose when to follow them and when to break them on their own.....especially the USA. If that were the case, how come the rest of the world has not forced Israel back inside it's borders? Or why wasn't Russia forced to leave Afghanastan by "International Law"? DD
here's what i dont understand. israel beat the other countries to get land. if the other countries want it back so bad, why dont they just go to war with isreal and get it back?
That's exactly how a lot of the countries operate today, some being worse than others. Laws exist more to keep some form of order in our society than to protect the weak.
Because there are power players (aka bullies) on the international stage which make laws difficult, if not impossible, to enforce, but it doesn't invalid the laws in any ways. There are plenty of laws in Mexico, for instance, to deter violence and corruptions, but the reality of rampant violence and corruptions is not an excuse to claim these laws are meaningless.
I don't think they are meaningless, per se, I just think they are not enforceable, and not recognized by many nations. And are tread on left and right, so therefore extremely inneffective. DD
Deck, cut the "holier than thou" crap. I don't need you to lecture me, nor does anyone else. You're not above anybody on this board, so shut your trap. CreepyFloyd does want us to lose the war on terror. He hates America. That much is clear. Sad, but true. Sometimes the truth hurts to point out.
Not really. Look at the NPT treaty. (non proliferation treaty). It is commonly described as "a treaty in crisis". When nations violate it (North Korea, Iran, Iraq), it is a BIG deal. Why? Because most nations don't violate it, look at the list of signatories: The list of violators is pretty small.
Yes and I support al-Qaeda, al-Zarqawi, Bin Laden, Hezbollah, and Ann Coulter as well...who cares if some of these people and groups contradict each other...I support them all
Cut down the rhetorics, bigtexxx. Do you agree all acts of violence terrorize people, regardless of the means of violence, the political ideology and religious affiliation of the perpetrators?
bigtexxx hates black people. That much is clear. Sad, but true. Sometimes the truth hurts to point out.
Don't believe the corporate media. I killed Zarqawi when I kickboxed him in the head. It was gruesome, but I did it for America.
Sam, Just because you sign something does not mean you always honor it. I would call our invasion of Iraq a possible violation of International laws. DD
