Re: why do countries become democracies?

On May 27, 8:12 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 28 May, 00:41, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 27, 4:12 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 27, 8:44 pm, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

wow. the entire world made a unanimous political decision. law was not
involved

Yep. Law is not that important in international relations.

fine with me. then there was no restriction on the US defending itself

It was in my opinion illegal. That there were no restrictions oput on
the US as a result is equaly obvious, so what's your point?

well since your opinion is not grounded either in law, or in any
tradition, other than pacificism or abject cowardice, your opinion
wasnt worth the electrons used to transmit it on the internet.

the US had the legal right to defend itself. you havent said a single
thing to contradict this other than your self aggrandizing, moralizing
opinion

So that lawyers prevented a government to go to war is evidence that
lawyers go to war? Strange.

ROFLMAO!! and if they'd decided the other way, what would that have
been?

The the government may or may not have taken the decision to go to
war, why?

the govt still had that option if the lawyers had said it was
illegal.

No legal, but political. And again, you confuse political  actions
with evidence for the legal situation.

ah. and, again, we have  your word on that. funny how prominent a
place in world politics your word  has.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I pointed out a
logical  flaw in your argument, which assumed that the legality of an
action is the sole motivating factor in government decisions, and
other, political or economic consequences are irrelevant.

now let's see. you said our act of self defense was 'illegal' (sic).

now you're moving the goalposts to say that other factors...than
law...determine the legality of action.

ever try that argument in court? 'your honor, my client robbed the
bank but let's just set aside the law. he's a good looking guy so
let's acquit'

ever work?



again you just put your argument in the toilet

can you disprove the fact no one agrees with you? care to provide a
cite?

Christopher Greenwood: International Law and the 'War against
Terrorism'
International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs
1944-), Vol. 78, No. 2

what country is he? because, unless he's a foreign minister of a
country, you just evaded the question

Don;t think I di. First, he is "someone" - which falsifies (again)
your claim that it is soleley me.

so there are now 2 of you who are wrong. wow.


Not really no. If you give me the cite to any of these experts showing
their evidence and their reasoning ,

i did give you the cite. the entire world's diplomatic corps. how many
more experts do  you need? shall we bring in the martians?

A cite is a reference to a piece of text where someone lays out the
evidence and reasons for a conclusion. Your "cite" is as much as cite
as Ray claiming "Dr Scott told me so". Worthless without the chance to
check his reasons.>  then i will of course take their

i notice you didn't cite a SINGLE country...not one...that agrees with
you. that's all you had to do. ray martinez references dr. scott. i
reference the foreign ministries of every country in the world AND the
UN...none of which recognized the taliban

if you have evidence to the contrary, present it. tell us which
countries DID recognize them, apart from the 3 bankrolling them. you
say there's all this overwhelming evidence against my argument

but you haven't present a single incidence of any govt agreeing with
you. so the logical conclusion is that you believe the US is wrong
just because.



opinion into account. I'd say you are doing the Martinez here: your
argue references to "lawyers in governments" is about as good as his
hearsay references to Scott. The purpose of a cite is to see what
evidences and what arguments your experts use. If you can;t put them
under that type of scrutiny, you simply have an arguemnt by authority
at best, a mere assertion at worst.

?? really? all you have to do to disprove my argument is cite what
countries agree with you. go ahead. name them. that's a test of how
valid your view of law is among the international community.

And as I said, this really does not matter. Law is a normative order,
how people (or in this case states) "ought" to behave. You are
committing the inverse naturalistic fallacy by trying to derive the
legal situation through observation of actual behaviour,

so you say the US action was illegal but that it's not illegal under
law.

wow. that argument may fool a first year law student. but it certainly
doesn't fly in the real world


Art 51 offers and exemption to a general principle, which requires it
to be interpreted narrowly. This interpretation is confirmed by the
debate at the time, which clearly indicates tat the situation
envisaged is a country at that point under the threat of either
acting, or loosing a war. At the time, the US were making extradition
requests, which in itself shows that no clear and present danger
existed of an attack by the Afghan _government_

?? proof? they had just attacked us. how much of a 'clear and present
danger' do you need? we were making extradition requests WHILE
preparing for defense.

you made an unwarranted assumption. and, in fact, it's a wrong
assumption because there was abundant evidence of their hostile
intent:

3000 dead americans.

christ...what an incompetent you are. what is your profession? did you
say you were a grad student? in what? nail technology?

I teach law at university, why?

unfortunately you're a law community of 1. some lawyers, it seems,
think law should be practiced.

apart from all the other legal academics i cited to you

none of whom was actually IN the foreign ministries of govts around
the world which had the responsibility to make the decisions.

uh huh. IOW they did not have to decide based on the issues we're
discussing. because no one agrees with you, it seems.

you said the US did not believe there was a clear and present danger
after the 911 attacks and that's obviously wrong

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: why do countries become democracies?
    ... with evidence for the legal situation. ... country, ... i did give you the cite. ... valid your view of law is among the international community. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Not speaking on my behalf (was:Re: William de Lancaster Is uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred
    ... >>> the one asked to provide your evidence and cite your sources. ... >>> opinion. ... >>> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: why do countries become democracies?
    ... I cited the law, and several academic papers that come to the same ... with evidence for the legal situation. ... And the people they cite.. ... argue references to "lawyers in governments" is about as good as his ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: William de Lancaster Is uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred
    ... promptly declare they are erroneous and stupid. ... the one asked to provide your evidence and cite your sources. ... opinion. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: Ignorance in Ultimate
    ... You've never pointed us to any evidence. ... the top twenty law schools, the number was closer to 30%. ... something like 15% of all lawyers being Jews. ... Also your opinion (that it was thought-provoking, ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
Loading