Quake3World

so did they realize the innocent would die or not?

You're quite dense...of course "innocent people will die" in a conflict such as that war. Who wouldn't realize civilians would die because of bombing and military action in any war? The argument wasnt about whether or not they'd die, but rather was on the primary intent of the military action.

okay so we've established that they knew the peasants would starve along with any insurgents. (something you didn't admit last time we discussed this as I recall)

and the argument was whether such bombing was moral and really in the interests of the people of Vietnam.

I never denied it, but it wasnt what I was arguing, and still isnt. I dont sit around and repeat the same obvious stuff others are spewing.

The argument was about "legality", and folks kept pushing morality as a benchmark for legality, when they are not the same at all.

yes the legality issue was covered too but again you remained (and remain) in denial. you claim the geneva conventions don't apply because you refuse to acknowledge the authority of the UN

bombing food crops are against the geneva conventions. i.e. a war crime all your denial won't make it untrue

i wonder if you'd be so bold as to condemn the food crop bombings as immoral for us now? moral? immoral? what's your analytical opinion?

The UN has no authority, or at least hasnt projected any. There is no consistency in their actions, because in practice its not a democratic system with set interests. That is why countries can get away with genocide and not have the UN get involved. For something to be legal or illegal there has to be an enforcing power, otherwise its just moral vs immoral (in which case what are you going to do, shake your finger at the bad guys?).

I'm not going to indulge you in stupid arguments.

if international laws exist, they exist.


if you run a red light but no cop is there to give you a ticket, does that make it legal to run the red light?

fucking hell

We dont live in an anarchic system because we have a consistent police force. If there are no cops around to enforce the law, its not a law. Laws do not exist without enforcement. Its the "tree dropped in the forrest argument", which isnt about the action, but is about the definition of sound. This is the same argument, only applied to law. If there is no enforcement, there is no law.

if a law is enforced selectively or partially is it a law?

and why the hell won't you answer the morality question? it's not a stupid question.

It breaks down, and has exceptions to it, but its still a law (to those who arent excepted). Laws are only applicable to those who arent powerful enough to overrule them or effectively combat the enforcement of them.

right so the US can break laws because noone will enforce the laws against them, due to America's awesome military power?

Canis wrote:... countries can get away with genocide and not have the UN get involved. ..

like for example the indonesian genocide in east timor, which the UN did nothing about because the 'enforcing power' you refer to (the US) supported the slaughter from day one

the UN's 'effectiveness', like its 'relevance', is measured by its willingness to do as the US demands

and you say you're not going to indulge anyone with stupid arguments? too late, chum

Unfortunately, there are no laws to prevent america from doing something. The only deterrance is the threat of retaliation. Within the realm of "international law" America goes along for the sake of getting along, but once it becomes inconvenient, who's to stop America from doing what it pleases? Nobody. The same goes for other countries as well. African nations can get away with genocide because they're not in the interest of the powerful UN countries. Help will be lent when things get out of hand...maybe.

none of which changes the legality of an action

While Letterman worked him over pretty good, I do think that his actions just played into the hands of conservatives and O'Reilly fans who want to continue to paint everyone who disagrees with them as rude and ignorant assholes.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:none of which changes the legality of an action

You're confusing legality with morality. Its immoral, but theres no legal binding to it....none!

tnf wrote:While Letterman worked him over pretty good, I do think that his actions just played into the hands of conservatives and O'Reilly fans who want to continue to paint everyone who disagrees with them as rude and ignorant assholes.

Yeah, I have a problem with it because it just reinforces stereotypes about liberal ideas, of which I have quite a few.

Canis wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:none of which changes the legality of an action

You're confusing legality with morality. Its immoral, but theres no legal binding to it....none!

no i'm not.

laws not enforcement determine legality.

i believe you'll be hard pressed to find anyone here or anywhere else who will agree with you. But what would I know, being the stupidest thing that ever walked the planet?

Bill, it's always a pleasure.

LOL

I disagree 100%. The legal aspects of a law deals with whether or not there is authority to enforce them. If I commit a murder its illegal because there is enforcement that will capture me and punish me according to law. If there was no enforcement, I'd be free to go as nothing can bind me to the law. Legality is proportional to enforceability.

By your claim any group can form a set of rules and if other folks dont abide by them then those folks are breaking the "law". Sure, the "written rule" has been broken, but there is no authority to enforce that rule and thereby make that rule a law. "Law" in this sense isnt a "Law" such as gravity. Legal laws have to have enforcement behind them otherwise they have no weight and there is nothing to bind anyone to them.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: i believe you'll be hard pressed to find anyone here or anywhere else who will agree with you.

Its a frustrating thing to realize, but the logic is undeniable, and sadly it is the truth.

Canis wrote:
the logic is undeniable

uh no

How is it not?

whether a law is enforced vigorously or not doesn't effect how legal the law is. the geneva coventions are international law and have been enforced

bombing food crops is illegal. the US is a signatory to that convention.