Iraqi WMDs latest: Guess what the 'mobile labs' were for

Former Member · June 2003

Originally posted by Toadborg
So the legality of a sovereign nation to intervene with force in anohter sovereign nation without the express permission of the security council?

Yes, because it only takes the one of the five to veto and the rogue is protected regardless of the opinion of every other country in the world...

Former Member · June 2003

But that isn't necessarily the law that is the way the law is administered, do you actually disagree with the law, or just with the current arrangement of the security council?

What would you suggest otherwise?

Former Member · June 2003

Originally posted by Toadborg
But that isn't necessarily the law that is the way the law is administered, do you actually disagree with the law, or just with the current arrangement of the security council?

What would you suggest otherwise?

The "law" says that the SC has to agree...

Former Member · June 2003

Yes but the law would still be the same if the security council were differently organised if you get what I mean, so i am not sure if you disagree with the law or the current set up of the security council the two are not the same.............

Former Member · June 2003

Are you asking if I believe that the law should be changed so that countries could invade others without the need to SC approval?

If so, the answer is yes.

Former Member · June 2003

OK but wouldn't that make the problem worse.

i assume you believe in the rule of law in one country, why not at an international level?

Or do you have a better way to monitor states agressive behaviour?

Former Member · June 2003

Originally posted by Toadborg
OK but wouldn't that make the problem worse.

Didn't say it would be easy

but we cannot sit back and watch (as Clandestine would apparently have us do) without the rule of law being applied. The current crimes against humanity "laws" we have are enough to prosecute, but this law prevent one of the potential remedies from being used...

Former Member · June 2003

Perhaps the right of veto should be removed rather than allowing countries to invade others without UN approval. Let's face it, it is hard enough to contain the US as it is...

And of course it would open a Pandora’s Box of biblical proportions. Any country in the world could be accused of committing human rights abuses (and therefore rightfully invaded) if you look hard enough.

Former Member · June 2003

Originally posted by Aladdin
Any country in the world could be accused of committing human rights abuses (and therefore rightfully invaded) if you look hard enough.

Indeed they could. But at the moment they can act with virtual impunity...

Former Member · June 2003

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Didn't say it would be easy but we cannot sit back and watch (as Clandestine would apparently have us do) without the rule of law being applied. The current crimes against humanity "laws" we have are enough to prosecute, but this law prevent one of the potential remedies from being used...

Because it was not thought to be the right remedy, that is a seperate issue. The UN was proceeding to deal with the thrat, other suggestions were made, as you well know most thought that the war was not the right course of action, like a jury at a trial.............

Iraqi WMDs latest: Guess what the 'mobile labs' were for

Comments