candycorn
Diamond Member
Goals are still not to commit troops to a war we can not win.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Goals are still not to commit troops to a war we can not win.
Are you actually suggesting there is no international law governing treaties? Wow. Just wow.
Even worse, we'll ignore our treaty obligations when we decide later on that it really wasn't in our interest after all.
Good thing the narco-libtards have never and will never be in charge of foreign policy. This country would become the Belgium of the world.
My point, there is no such thing as international law. There is no book of statutes that apply to the entire planet, there is no international court to enforce international laws, even if they did exist.
Countries comply with treaties because they either feel a moral obligation or they fear reprisal. They do not fear some non-existent international court.
People need to get over this foolish idea that there is some international law book that all countries must follow.
The idiots who claim that the crimea vote was "illegal" have no idea how the real world works. 96% of the people of that region voted to rejoin Russia. The will of the people will be upheld.
Gee, I must be one of those idiots you speak of. I've been thinking the ICJ under direction and enforcement of the UN at in the city of Den Haag, known internationally as THE HAGUE represented some kind of international court of justice. Maybe that is why they call it the ICJ? Thanks for letting us know it is some kind of hoax that doesn't exist.
My point, there is no such thing as international law. There is no book of statutes that apply to the entire planet, there is no international court to enforce international laws, even if they did exist.
Countries comply with treaties because they either feel a moral obligation or they fear reprisal. They do not fear some non-existent international court.
People need to get over this foolish idea that there is some international law book that all countries must follow.
The idiots who claim that the crimea vote was "illegal" have no idea how the real world works. 96% of the people of that region voted to rejoin Russia. The will of the people will be upheld.
Gee, I must be one of those idiots you speak of. I've been thinking the ICJ under direction and enforcement of the UN at in the city of Den Haag, known internationally as THE HAGUE represented some kind of international court of justice. Maybe that is why they call it the ICJ? Thanks for letting us know it is some kind of hoax that doesn't exist.
please cite cases heard in that court where international treaties were broken and cite the punishment given to the countries that broke the treaties.
you are correct that it is a hoax. It has zero enforcement authority, just like the UN.
As pointed out, there is both international law and an international court.Are you actually suggesting there is no international law governing treaties? Wow. Just wow.
Even worse, we'll ignore our treaty obligations when we decide later on that it really wasn't in our interest after all.
Good thing the narco-libtards have never and will never be in charge of foreign policy. This country would become the Belgium of the world.
My point, there is no such thing as international law. There is no book of statutes that apply to the entire planet, there is no international court to enforce international laws, even if they did exist.
Countries comply with treaties because they either feel a moral obligation or they fear reprisal. They do not fear some non-existent international court.
People need to get over this foolish idea that there is some international law book that all countries must follow.
The idiots who claim that the crimea vote was "illegal" have no idea how the real world works. 96% of the people of that region voted to rejoin Russia. The will of the people will be upheld.
Countries comply with treaty obligations because their credibility is at stake. Fail to live up to the terms of a treaty and no one will sign a treat with you anymore and the ones you did sign are suspect.
The people of that region were given a choice: join Russia now or join Russia later. There was no third option. So like the old Soviet votes the result was pretty much a given.
Wait until New Mexico votes to rejoin Mexico.
BBC News - Crimea exit poll: About 93% back Russia unionOn the ballot paper, voters were asked whether they would like Crimea to rejoin Russia.
A second question asked whether Crimea should return to its status under the 1992 constitution, which would give the region much greater autonomy.
There was no option for those who wanted the constitutional situation to remain unchanged.
My point, there is no such thing as international law. There is no book of statutes that apply to the entire planet, there is no international court to enforce international laws, even if they did exist.
Countries comply with treaties because they either feel a moral obligation or they fear reprisal. They do not fear some non-existent international court.
People need to get over this foolish idea that there is some international law book that all countries must follow.
The idiots who claim that the crimea vote was "illegal" have no idea how the real world works. 96% of the people of that region voted to rejoin Russia. The will of the people will be upheld.
Gee, I must be one of those idiots you speak of. I've been thinking the ICJ under direction and enforcement of the UN at in the city of Den Haag, known internationally as THE HAGUE represented some kind of international court of justice. Maybe that is why they call it the ICJ? Thanks for letting us know it is some kind of hoax that doesn't exist.
please cite cases heard in that court where international treaties were broken and cite the punishment given to the countries that broke the treaties.
you are correct that it is a hoax. It has zero enforcement authority, just like the UN.
Gee, I must be one of those idiots you speak of. I've been thinking the ICJ under direction and enforcement of the UN at in the city of Den Haag, known internationally as THE HAGUE represented some kind of international court of justice. Maybe that is why they call it the ICJ? Thanks for letting us know it is some kind of hoax that doesn't exist.
please cite cases heard in that court where international treaties were broken and cite the punishment given to the countries that broke the treaties.
you are correct that it is a hoax. It has zero enforcement authority, just like the UN.
No, it isn't a hoax. International law may be hard to implement and enforce, but it has been done. The book of laws are the current active resolutions passed by the UN, which includes the approval of the Security Council. If a country or group of countries believe a treaty or resolution has been ignored or violated it has the option and process to have it heard in the UN or when appropriate the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
The First Gulf War or "Desert Storm" was implemented with the passage of Resolutions that inlcluded 660 through 668. Those resolutions gave 34 nations internationally recognized legal right to use military force against Iraq to force the removal of Irag forces from Kuwait.
This is not a new concept. The Korean War was fought with a UN Resolution and by a coalition of UN forces.
please cite cases heard in that court where international treaties were broken and cite the punishment given to the countries that broke the treaties.
you are correct that it is a hoax. It has zero enforcement authority, just like the UN.
No, it isn't a hoax. International law may be hard to implement and enforce, but it has been done. The book of laws are the current active resolutions passed by the UN, which includes the approval of the Security Council. If a country or group of countries believe a treaty or resolution has been ignored or violated it has the option and process to have it heard in the UN or when appropriate the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
The First Gulf War or "Desert Storm" was implemented with the passage of Resolutions that inlcluded 660 through 668. Those resolutions gave 34 nations internationally recognized legal right to use military force against Iraq to force the removal of Irag forces from Kuwait.
This is not a new concept. The Korean War was fought with a UN Resolution and by a coalition of UN forces.
you and Rabbi are showing naivete on this one. The UN has enforcement powers??? really??? Does the UN have an army? Don't be silly, the UN only has the military of member countries and they will only act if they think its in their national interests.
UN resolutions were why the first gulf war was engaged in????they were an excuse not a reason.
As to international law, the international chamber of commerce in Paris has more authority than the UN, and its a joke too.
but I am still waiting for one of you to tell me where I can get a copy of the international statutes that are binding on every country in the world and will be enforced by the UN![]()
BBC News - Crimea exit poll: About 93% back Russia unionOn the ballot paper, voters were asked whether they would like Crimea to rejoin Russia.
A second question asked whether Crimea should return to its status under the 1992 constitution, which would give the region much greater autonomy.
There was no option for those who wanted the constitutional situation to remain unchanged.
International law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are a lo-lo on this matter. You need to quit posting so as not to embarrass yourself.
BBC News - Crimea exit poll: About 93% back Russia unionOn the ballot paper, voters were asked whether they would like Crimea to rejoin Russia.
A second question asked whether Crimea should return to its status under the 1992 constitution, which would give the region much greater autonomy.
There was no option for those who wanted the constitutional situation to remain unchanged.
International law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are a lo-lo on this matter. You need to quit posting so as not to embarrass yourself.
from your wiki cite
"Much of international law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member of the international community is not obliged to abide by this type of international law, unless it has expressly consented to a particular course of conduct."
thanks for helping make my point. LO-LO? thats you on this one.
No, it isn't a hoax. International law may be hard to implement and enforce, but it has been done. The book of laws are the current active resolutions passed by the UN, which includes the approval of the Security Council. If a country or group of countries believe a treaty or resolution has been ignored or violated it has the option and process to have it heard in the UN or when appropriate the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
The First Gulf War or "Desert Storm" was implemented with the passage of Resolutions that inlcluded 660 through 668. Those resolutions gave 34 nations internationally recognized legal right to use military force against Iraq to force the removal of Irag forces from Kuwait.
This is not a new concept. The Korean War was fought with a UN Resolution and by a coalition of UN forces.
you and Rabbi are showing naivete on this one. The UN has enforcement powers??? really??? Does the UN have an army? Don't be silly, the UN only has the military of member countries and they will only act if they think its in their national interests.
UN resolutions were why the first gulf war was engaged in????they were an excuse not a reason.
As to international law, the international chamber of commerce in Paris has more authority than the UN, and its a joke too.
but I am still waiting for one of you to tell me where I can get a copy of the international statutes that are binding on every country in the world and will be enforced by the UN![]()
OK so you're playing a zero sum game: either international law is exactly like American law or else it's nothing.
Do you see the fallacy once I state it that way?
BBC News - Crimea exit poll: About 93% back Russia union
International law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are a lo-lo on this matter. You need to quit posting so as not to embarrass yourself.
from your wiki cite
"Much of international law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member of the international community is not obliged to abide by this type of international law, unless it has expressly consented to a particular course of conduct."
thanks for helping make my point. LO-LO? thats you on this one.
If you think that supports any point you've tried to make Ihave news for you.
you and Rabbi are showing naivete on this one. The UN has enforcement powers??? really??? Does the UN have an army? Don't be silly, the UN only has the military of member countries and they will only act if they think its in their national interests.
UN resolutions were why the first gulf war was engaged in????they were an excuse not a reason.
As to international law, the international chamber of commerce in Paris has more authority than the UN, and its a joke too.
but I am still waiting for one of you to tell me where I can get a copy of the international statutes that are binding on every country in the world and will be enforced by the UN![]()
OK so you're playing a zero sum game: either international law is exactly like American law or else it's nothing.
Do you see the fallacy once I state it that way?
laws and courts are only valid if they have real enforcement power. There is no court or body of law that is enforceable world wide.
Any country can ignore a UN ruling if they choose--and they do.
from your wiki cite
"Much of international law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member of the international community is not obliged to abide by this type of international law, unless it has expressly consented to a particular course of conduct."
thanks for helping make my point. LO-LO? thats you on this one.
If you think that supports any point you've tried to make Ihave news for you.
voluntary compliance with law makes the law moot.
please cite cases heard in that court where international treaties were broken and cite the punishment given to the countries that broke the treaties.
you are correct that it is a hoax. It has zero enforcement authority, just like the UN.
No, it isn't a hoax. International law may be hard to implement and enforce, but it has been done. The book of laws are the current active resolutions passed by the UN, which includes the approval of the Security Council. If a country or group of countries believe a treaty or resolution has been ignored or violated it has the option and process to have it heard in the UN or when appropriate the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
The First Gulf War or "Desert Storm" was implemented with the passage of Resolutions that inlcluded 660 through 668. Those resolutions gave 34 nations internationally recognized legal right to use military force against Iraq to force the removal of Irag forces from Kuwait.
This is not a new concept. The Korean War was fought with a UN Resolution and by a coalition of UN forces.
you and Rabbi are showing naivete on this one. The UN has enforcement powers??? really??? Does the UN have an army? Don't be silly, the UN only has the military of member countries and they will only act if they think its in their national interests.
UN resolutions were why the first gulf war was engaged in????they were an excuse not a reason.
As to international law, the international chamber of commerce in Paris has more authority than the UN, and its a joke too.
but I am still waiting for one of you to tell me where I can get a copy of the international statutes that are binding on every country in the world and will be enforced by the UN![]()
liberals were incensed that the U.S. invaded Iraq.....i guess 18 or so UN resolutions weren't enough...
anybody here think the 'economic enforcement' that Obama has imposed will defeat Putin.......?
and where is the UN resolution.....Russia vetoed it.....![]()