Re: why do countries become democracies?

On 28 May, 02:29, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 27, 9:09 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 28 May, 01:43, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

well since your opinion is not grounded either in law, or in any
tradition,

I cited the law, and several academic papers  that come to  the same
conclusion. Maybe you should try reading them? They also reference
other academic who disagree. on thei rbasis, you might be able
eventally to construct an argument instea of s string of insults and
smut

maybe you should look at the UN to see how law is practiced. because
it's obvious your view is not accepted by any govt in the world. none

Well, one place where law is practiced are Courts. So cite me a court
decision. You are again doing a Ray Martinez. Ray claimed that because
courts ruled only in the 20th century that school prayers were
unconstitutional, and the practice existed in the 18th and 19th
century, this means that school prayers are constitutional. This is a
fallacy. They always were unconstitutional, and the mere fact that
they were for whatever reason not challenged in court is irrelevant.
The mere observation that nobody in the 19th century, not a single
government official, school principal etc thought it problematic is
irrelevant.

Same here. Governments simply do what they do, for a whole variety of
reasons. You do not observe the law by merely observing them.

as to my language, yes, i think you're a coward and an apologist for a
guy who committed an unspeakable act of war.

Cite a single occurrence where I apologised for Bin Laden. And to be
on the save side, look up "apologist" and "apologise", since the words
seem to cause difficulties for you.

I stated that under international law as it is, the actions of the
coalition were illegal. This does not imply, in any conceivable sense,
a justification of the terrorist attack.

Another analogy: A police officer who beats a suspect is committing a
crime. This has no bearing whatsoever on te question whether the
suspect is guilty,

i can easily see you in a
bowler hat and carrying an umbrella bleating "PEACE IN OUR TIME"

Well, I think we had established that you have an overactive
imagination already, so no surprise. At least this time round you
don't have a sexual fantasy about me.

you refuse to tell me of ANY govt that agrees with you.

because, as I explained, as a challange that is as irrelevant as being
asked to show a half fish-half man fossil by a creationist. But since
you persist, the UAE, Pakistan and Saudia Arabia did recognise the
the Taliban. So there we dealt with your "any". Can we now move on to
something that i actually relevant for the question?

presumably
they know the law. your only defense? "I'm right because i'm right"

Nope, because of the text of the relevant law, as cited alsetherad,
and the interpretation (as cited) elsethread

sorry, sport. i quit believing that line when i was 7.



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

Apart from all the cites to the academic opinions analysigthe relevant
law that is

academics aren't the law in practice. as i said,


Courts are generally seen as "law in practice". Any case you'd liek to
cite?

NO ONE agrees with
you, in fact the citations you refer to obviously dont apply here
because no one used them to declare that the taliban SHOULD be
recognized

Apart from the three that did. But anyway, yes, they were a pretty
nasty bunch and had few friends. That impact son the question how? And
you really should stop to undermine your own position. The argument
woudl still be weak, but if th Taliban had been a recognised
government, you would have a much better argument.

so you have your own mantras it seems. otherwise, tell me how many
foreign ministries agree with your view.





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.

Yes, that was my point. You are the one claiming lawyers declare war,
not governments.

you're not a freakin' lawyer. i'm married to one

please send her my most sincere condolences.

and no lawyer is as
incompetent as you are regarding language

i left my words intact above. the term was lawyers 'go' to war. i
never said they DECLARE war. you need some remedial english classes.

So sorry, i did indeed replace the technical legal term for your
street jargon. If you see a difference between the expressions, feel
free to explain. I'd still say that if a lawyer (typically too old for
the draft anyway) tells a government that military action woudl be
legal, this is not a "lawyer going to war", especially if the
government in question does not begin military actions anyway.

\\> > > 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.

Nope. i say  that considerations other than legality influenced
governemnts on whether or not to suport the US on this. read for
comprehension.

ROFLMAO!! and those factors, somehow, convinced the entire WORLD to
support us even though the decision on not recognizing the taliban was
made LONG before 9/11??

god you're as bright as cygnus x-1



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.

And all the other cites i gave. And the people they cite.. Try reading
them

and it seems the foreign ministers of the entire world, who presumably
HAVE read these, and did not agree with you because NONE of them used
these arguments to have the taliban recognized. none. not a single one
agrees with you. none of them made your argument. none of them
recognized the taliban.

Yep, they decided (for possibly very good reasons like national
interest, political expediency, what the press woudl say etc etc that
there was nothing to be gained by doing so) . Doesn't really matter.
=>

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

Indeed,and just like him, you don't give me the opportunity to look at
their reasons - unlike my references. So an invalid cite

you're free to find ANY country that made an argument to recognize the
taliban based on your citations.

go ahead. list them. i've asked you repeatedly to do that. your
response has been that you're right and they're wrong. all of them.


..sorry. i don't believe you'



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.

nope. because of the principles and concepts recognised  in
international law

self made principles it seems. principles you keep written on the
backs of matchbooks and on cards stuffed into 'people' magazine.


I have you the cites. you can look up the articles in something called
a "library" or in several cases "the internet"

because you haven't produced a SINGLE lawyer from ANY country in ANY
foreign ministry who agrees with you.

And you have't produced a single cite to any of these persons where
they put down what their legal take on th eissue is, not one. Mind
you, I could give you a couple if you ask nicely.

none. not a single one. not a
citation. not a reference. not a single country that used your
arguments to recognize the taliban.

=>

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.

No, I say it was illegal, and that they did it with impunity is not a
counter argument

your whole argument is that the US is wrong because it's the US.

I rather carefully used the technical expression "illegal" Don't know
about "wrong" And as _you_ keep saying, this also means that I think
the UK etc were doing something illegal.

is, of course, an argument of religoin on the far left. but the entire
world's diplomatic corps rejected it. no lawyer in ANY diplomatic corp
in the entire WORLD agrees with you. none.

How do you know? You so far failed to ive a cite to one of them giving
his/her legal analysis

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

Essentially, you are saying might is right, and whatever governments
decide to do is legal So no need for law, really,

and you're saying that you're right because...well, just because.
you're saying that even though NO lawyers made your argument in ANY
diplomatic corp, you're still right because it was america that was
attacked and it's always right to attack the US.

Sigh. Which I never said. Otherwise you'd e able to show me the post
where I did.


i say that whether or not something is legal or illegal is normally
(there are recognised exception, such as the "peristent objector" in
international law) independent of how people (governments) actually
behave. A question that can be answered rationally based on evidence
and reason, and that the fact that "most governments ignore it" is
about as relevant for the truth as "most people believe in creation"
is for the truth of the ToE

i notice you have no response for the fact the US was attacked and,
under the UN charter, article 51, has the right to defend itself. no
response at all. other than that it's right to attack the US.

I think I responded several times why I don't think Art 51 covers the
situation. see again, "state actor".

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.

So what?

?? it seems to me they'd have read the same citations you did. given
the fact that NONE of them made your arguments to the international
community, NO ONE agrees with you. no one.

International law is there to analyse/judge what foreign ministries
do, not to describe what they do. You are committing the naturaist
fallacy, again. hence the "so what".

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

You are almost as good as backspace in "reformulating"things.  I said
that regardless of what the gov might believe, there was at the time
hostilities started  no danger of an attack by the Taliban-

i was in NY after the attacks. i was in a building guarded by people
with M16's and dump trucks filled with sand sitting in the parking
lot.

yes, we believed another attack was possible. you're a liar. you're a
neville chamberlain wannabe. you'd defend ANY murderer, any psychopath
who wanted to attack the US

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: why do countries become democracies?
    ... BANKROLLING the taliban. ... for an NGO based terrorist attack on the US. ... This is of course why international law requires de facto control ... protect criminals, they only harm the police etc. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Are the American people imbeciles?
    ... District governor Malim Hussain chastized NATO for the attack, ... target was some sort of Taliban commander. ... the Pakistani government for the wrongful detentions." ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: why do countries become democracies?
    ... It's an Israeli blockade enforced with little help from Egypt. ... al qaeda with the complicity of the taliban. ... Defining an organization which controls 95% of a country 'government' ... The UN isn't a world government which enforces an international law on ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mountains Rush and Moore
    ... In fairness, nobody knows if under a different government, 911 would have been ... Remember that the previous attack on US soil by foreigners didn't do that much ... Prior to 9-11, the Taliban (which had been put in power by the USA, which was ... It doesn't necessarily mean that the host country supports or condones ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Mountains Rush and Moore
    ... In fairness, nobody knows if under a different government, 911 would have been ... Remember that the previous attack on US soil by foreigners didn't do that much ... Prior to 9-11, the Taliban (which had been put in power by the USA, which was ... It doesn't necessarily mean that the host country supports or condones ...
    (sci.space.policy)