Of course not; the same can be said for our domestic laws, people routinely violate them and go unpunished, but that doesn't make them any less of laws as the vast majority of people do not violate them. There's a substantial body of international law that most nations comply with, which is why violations are newsworthy.
Batman Jones was so happy that we killed Zarqawi, that he didn't even bother to post in this thread until it came down to insulting people. That much is clear. Sad, but true. Sometimes the truth hurts to point out.
I don't hate black people. I love black people. Why must you put your selfish partisan agenda in front of what's best for American troops?
really? Ask Saddam Hussein in 1991 if violations of international law had no repercussions. I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of a law. The reason why you have a law is not to put people in jail, it's to reinforce certain behavioral norms for moral/economic/other reasons. The vast majority of codified (as well as customary) international law, such as the various Geneva conventions, the NPT, etc.. is routinely complied with. Even if there is no effective criminal sanction, the fact that a country will be treated as an itnernational pariah is often times an effective punishment to deter compliance with the law, which is why MOST countires comply with it. Again, to draw the parallel with domestic laws, homicide is illegal in all 50 states. Yet there are tens of thousands of homicides in the US every year. Does this mean that murder laws are meaningless and useless? I don't think so.
This is my favorite strategy of yours, the declaration of victory every time you get embarassed here. You can't lose if you don't play! Back on topic, just because you think all black people should die does not make it right! Cut it out.
If you shrink down that list to the people who have the financial and technical resources to violate the treaty, for whom signing the treaty reflects an actual decision between producing nuclear weapons or not, the list gets quite a bit smaller. Fiji? Vatican City? Cape Verde? Liechtenstein? I don't think one can say that those four, as a very small example, have complied with the NPT out of fear of becoming an international pariah. Also, at least a couple of the names on that list have significant stockpiles of nuclear weapons - China and France jump out as people who have carried out nuclear tests in the recent past, and China of course is the source of the nuclear documents for the preported AQ Khan "network".
LOL. I was never embarrassed. You were the one that got hot under the collar after the truth came out about your liberal brothers being upset and frustrated by the death of Zarqawi. I'm not surprised you tried to attack me. I touched a nerve with you.
Man I bet you're still upset that Nathan Bedford Forrest is dead. EDIT: I'm out - this thread is way to juvenile.
Well, of course there are many smaller nations on there who don't have resources to develop nuclear weapons. However there are many that could. North Korea has a collapsing agrarian economy that can't feed it's own people, no friends and not many resources, yet they were able to pull it off. Many, many states have far superior resources at their disposal than North Korea, from rich countries like Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, all the way on down to middle class nations, like Chile, Malaysia, Thailand, or newly oil rich countries like Kazakhstan, could develop nuclear weapons if they wanted to and pursued it to the lenghts that North Korea has, yet they have not over the last 40 years. Part of the reason is the fact that the violation of the NPT would render them international pariahs. The list of violators is still far, far smaller than the list of nations that are in compliance (includign former violators that are now compliant, e.g. Libya). Well, I should have clarified, the NPF has different classes of signatories. China and France (and the US, UK and Russia) are in a different class of signatories of the NPT as they maintained nuclear weaposn before the 1967 treaty was signed.
So you are claiming that in 1967 the Communist Atheist PRC government and the Socialist Christian French government along with the US and USSR teamed up in signing this treaty specifically with the goal of depriving Muslim countries of nuclear weapons because they are prejudiced against Muslims and their dietary practices?
Halfbreed; Sorry I didn't see this post until now and would have responded sooner. I apologize for coming off as self-righteous there. I'm sure you weren't glorifying the deaths of the civillians and was caught up in making a point.
im claiming that Sweet and Sour Pork, Mooshoo Pork, Pork Fried Rice plus French Free Range Pork are superior cuisines and countries that think pork is bad deserve to have problems. France: “...the country where the pig is most valued” - Jane Grigson, Charcuterie and French Pork Cookery.http://www.frenchentree.com/france-food-cuisine/
I'm coming late to this debate again so pardon me if someone hasn't addressed this already. First off you know very little about me and if you had read my response to Cohen you would understand that I'm not one who tells people to not do the right thing even if that results in someone's death. I've never killed anyone and hopefully will never have to but I have fought for my safety and possibly my life and I have sent people to the hospital using nothing more than my hands and my body. I'm not saying any of this as a threat but before you make such a ridiculously insulting blanket statement regarding moral depravity in the face of something as serious as killing someone and in the process killing innocent bystanders you should know the background of who you're addressing. Yes of course there are times when violence and killing is justified and I fully agree this was the time. That doesn't mean that it should be glorified. The fact that I've put people in the hospital is not something I'm proud of. That I tell people that in a self-defense situation they may have to kill someone isn't something to be proud of either. Its a sad commentary that in this world we still have to kill and hurt people and while necessary its not something that we should aspire to. What is morally depraved is revelling in the death of someone especially when innocent bystanders here killed. We can acknowledge that the right thing was done in killing Zarqawi and still feel bad that a woman and a child had to die in the process
