So now I will explain you something, [censored] - Page 2

[censored] · #11 07-12-2005, 03:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess what I am saying is that international law does not exist as currently there is no desire amongst those who subscribe to it to see it enforced wholly and fully.

[/ QUOTE ]

The desire is big among many, they lack the ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong certainly if the rest of the world decided to spend its resources to allow them to impose international law on the US they could so. they simply have determined that the cost is too high, thus they do not have the desire.

Arnfinn Madsen · #12 07-12-2005, 03:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be logical to argue that international exists for some countries but not all. that is the less powerful nations are required to follow international law but the more powerfurl nations are not.

this may not be something many like but it is hard to argue that is not the reality.

from this you can clearly see the benefits a society recieves from deciding to fund a strong military power.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is also what has resulted from the Iraq war. Many nations are back on the track of trying to build a stronger military to increase their "number of votes" in the world parliament. US is not certain to stay ahead in that game mid- & longterm so the Iraq war might backfire.

[censored] · #13 07-12-2005, 03:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also international law only exist if the members of a nation want it to. Otherwise the only option for the offended nations is force.

thus the question becomes if the other nations felt the US violated international law but did nothing about it, ie breaking the law carried no consequence, did the law exist in the first place? I say clearly no.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law excisted, but there was no police in place to authorize it, but that does not relieve US from the criminal-stamp.

[/ QUOTE ]

if a law cannot be enforced it cannot very well be law now can it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not de facto law anymore, thus easeing the decision process for other countries considering to violate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

so basically all the US did was prove that the law did not exist.

what does exist is a law which basically says the US and a few of out Allies will determine the laws by which nations conduct their foriegn policy.

and now we come to the problem. under [censored]-ology the US in conducting foreign policy in a just manner should when interacting with other countries take into account the will of all the people being affected.

thus the question is whether the US acted in accordance with international law as clearly no such exists, only a desire to have a law but the US may have acted unjustly. However that is not an easy thing to determine.

[censored] · #14 07-12-2005, 03:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be logical to argue that international exists for some countries but not all. that is the less powerful nations are required to follow international law but the more powerfurl nations are not.

this may not be something many like but it is hard to argue that is not the reality.

from this you can clearly see the benefits a society recieves from deciding to fund a strong military power.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is also what has resulted from the Iraq war. Many nations are back on the track of trying to build a stronger military to increase their "number of votes" in the world parliament. US is not certain to stay ahead in that game mid- & longterm so the Iraq war might backfire.

[/ QUOTE ]

right remember I did not say that a society based on respecting the will of the people would not make decisions which would in hindsight be viewed as a mistake. Infact I said that it is certain they would.

The Iraq war may at some point be viewed as one of these decisions.

Arnfinn Madsen · #15 07-12-2005, 03:24 AM

Just FYI it comes with a price:

Military expenditure 2004

[censored] · #16 07-12-2005, 03:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just FYI it comes with a price:

Military expenditure 2004

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is suprising that so many nations feel comfortable in effectively turning over much their sovereignity to the US.

It is hard to agrue that the US is not truly trusted by much of the world.

Arnfinn Madsen · #17 07-12-2005, 03:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just FYI it comes with a price:

Military expenditure 2004

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is suprising that so many nations feel comfortable in effectively turning over much their sovereignity to the US.

It is hard to agrue that the US is not truly trusted by much of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], adjustments in this can't be made overnight. Thus I speak of mid- and longterm.

[censored] · #18 07-12-2005, 03:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just FYI it comes with a price:

Military expenditure 2004

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is suprising that so many nations feel comfortable in effectively turning over much their sovereignity to the US.

It is hard to agrue that the US is not truly trusted by much of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], adjustments in this can't be made overnight. Thus I speak of mid- and longterm.

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting. in your opinion then do you see the european nations increasing military spending in the future?

I think the ultimate answer to that question determines how and how strongly the citizens of these nations feel about the government of the US. would you agree/disagree

Arnfinn Madsen · #19 07-12-2005, 03:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just FYI it comes with a price:

Military expenditure 2004

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is suprising that so many nations feel comfortable in effectively turning over much their sovereignity to the US.

It is hard to agrue that the US is not truly trusted by much of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], adjustments in this can't be made overnight. Thus I speak of mid- and longterm.

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting. in your opinion then do you see the european nations increasing military spending in the future?

I think the ultimate answer to that question determines how and how strongly the citizens of these nations feel about the government of the US. would you agree/disagree

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, more or less. It does not come down to fear of being invaded or such. If European countries feel that the US govenment is in conflict with their interests this will be a factor to increase military spending. However, for cultural reasons I believe the willingness to do so is higher outside Europe (China etc.)

[censored] · #20 07-12-2005, 04:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just FYI it comes with a price:

Military expenditure 2004

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is suprising that so many nations feel comfortable in effectively turning over much their sovereignity to the US.

It is hard to agrue that the US is not truly trusted by much of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], adjustments in this can't be made overnight. Thus I speak of mid- and longterm.

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting. in your opinion then do you see the european nations increasing military spending in the future?

I think the ultimate answer to that question determines how and how strongly the citizens of these nations feel about the government of the US. would you agree/disagree

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, more or less. It does not come down to fear of being invaded or such. If European countries feel that the US govenment is in conflict with their interests this will be a factor to increase military spending. However, for cultural reasons I believe the willingness to do so is higher outside Europe (China etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it would follow that the more differences a nation's beliefs are with the US the more they should spend on military power.