Quote from trader556:
All your statements are self contradictory. Not looking to get into a wording pissing match or debate the meaning of the word is. If the law is meaningless according to you, why have it? If it's a matter of interpretation then who's to say who is right and who is wrong. You immediately discount the other side. Are you an attorney of international law? Where is the supporting side besides the Shrub and Co spin?. Sooooooo, he who has the weapons and WE DO! can just f%$k everyone else and be done with it? Who's gonna stop us? 
One opinion, according to this it's 43. But it's really doesn't seem to matter in these discussions-as long it is against your views anything is discounted right?
Look optional777 you either respect the law and enforce it ACROSS the board or not. You can't be selective about crimes. War and thousands of lives -Hundreds at stake!!!!! look at all the UN resolutions and all the violators and tell me what kind of righteousness and justice are WE supporting? Might makes it right? if that's your law, lets accept it, declare it and be done with the dog and pony shows. It will still be US vs the whole world including many of our own, but we may get some respect on being truthfully.
Out of 192 nations have what? 3-4 on our side? Is that democracy? Dismantle the UN because it's convenient this time? Pay the Turks 44 billion cash upfront with over 90% opposition in their own country for what? my tax dollars at full work?
Turks maybe worst than Iraq in human rights violations treatment of women but don't let these friggin facts stop us.
It used to be---life, liberty and the pursue of happiness
monkey and them goons new meaning?
---death, control/manipulation by force, and the purse of money, oil, and world domination at any cost :mad
Shrub Mafia and Co just has to go http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=211720#post211720
Saddam has law, his law, and he enforces it. Does that mean his law is good, that he is lawful?
My point is that laws always exist, always have to some degree or another.
The issue right now concerning Bush's potential undertaking is
whether or not it is lawful.
Who decides what is lawful? In whose eyes is it lawful or unlawful?
Who is the judge in this case? Who is interpreting the law properly. Don't you think that Bush has a team of legal experts who could write brief upon brief in support of his interpreting laws to support his position?
We don't have a world government, we don't have a final authority. How many times since the creation of the United Nations and international law has law been "violated" according to someone's interpretation of the law?
A law is only as good as someone's ability to enforce it, and a law is just only to the degree that is corresponds to the concept of justice and fairness.
Until the United Nations could agree on a body to be the final authority on the correct interpretation of international law, and be willing to back up the enforcement of international law, what good is it really?
I don't trust the agendas of any country, as they are all self centered. The #1 job of our government is to defend itself and its citizens, just like any other government. To ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense.
As much as we might like a United Nations of the world, it is just a silly concept that doesn't really work.
Alliances work as they are born out of common political needs at a particular time and place, and they are subject to change as a country changes their own personal agenda. Look at the current alliance between France and German, less than 65 years after Germany invaded France. It is a total joke. It is a marriage of convenience and sympathetic political agendas, not some concrete alliance based on morality. It is a house of straw, that will be blown down with the first major economic crisis in either France or Germany.
Anyone with an historical perspective knows that all alliances are temporal, as each country lives in a state of flux.
And some people dream of a world wide alliance?
Folly, pure folly.
