Why then must be continue to be bound by international law in this war?
2006-12-09 11:10:37 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I said this before, but this is essentially the same question, so...
I suppose I'm one of those old fashioned people who believes in real and consistent morals. If it was bad for Saddam to gas and torture civilians, then it's bad for us to gas and torture civilians, and I'm glad we don't.
First, it just strikes me that some things are bad, pure and simple, and anyone who does them is similarly bad. Retaliation in kind does not excuse the action.
The other, much more pressing reason I believe we should keep to the moral high road is that I believe it is simply more effective. One of the things that brought down Hitler was that he was so brutal and horrible that he could never truly conqueor any nation. Instead, partisans and sabateurs always developed, and he ended up having to run many factories at the point of a gun --- and even then, productivity and product quality were miserably low because everyone wanted to interfere with production every chance they got.
This second reason is much more true in a conflict like Iraq, where our goal isn't so much to kill a certain number of insurgents, but is much more to win the hearts of the population so that they cease to become insurgents. If we carpet bomb weddings, we may kill a few bad guys, but we'll create far more new bad guys who are infuriated at the death of their wives and children. This, I believe, is why the military does its best to adhere to a code of conduct, even when the opposition does not.
We're supposed to by the guys in the white hats here, and we should always act like it.
2006-12-09 11:23:03 · answer #1 · answered by Steve 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
imposing a blockade over a coastline isn't legal below worldwide regulation save especially circumstances related to armed conflict: war might desire to be declared (imposing a unilateral blockade is, in and of itself, an act of war) or Israel might desire to be appearing as a belligerent occupier (something which it strongly denies). Israel has declared a unilateral blockade around Gaza, arguing that it relatively is in a state of war with Hamas. besides the shown fact that, it relatively is generally agreed that particular products – which includes food, water, and medical components for the sick and wounded – are to be approved via the blockade and that banning those products isn't approved below worldwide regulation. in addition to, different than for a binding selection with the help of the United countries secure practices Council, it relatively is unlawful for a State to enforce a blockade against ships flying the flag of yet another State interior the severe seas.
2016-10-14 08:56:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We were never fighting within International law to begin with. this whole war was illegal under international law.
However, to your question, If somebody breaks into your house, are you allowed to break into his? NO, you're not. You call the police and they go in well armed and backed up to capture him and only take the things that he stole from you, as they don't' have a warrant for anything else. You are also not allowed to kill somebody completely unrelated to the breaking to your house.
2006-12-09 11:20:45 · answer #3 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
We shouldn't.If the world does not figure out soon that we in a war and the method is un-uniformed fighters that their countries can deny,we are going to lose and lose big.
2006-12-09 11:23:15 · answer #4 · answered by Tommy G. 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
True. However, that mentality could also be used to justify torture (meaningless kind, if torturing somebody to say something that will stop said torture is meaning) and all-out butchering of enemy prisoners. We didn't stoop to their level in WW2, with a hell of a lot more countries a hell of a lot worse, why would we need to now?
2006-12-09 11:14:16 · answer #5 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
that's probably the same thought that starts almost every military atrocity in history...
they aren't playing by the rules, so I'm going to rationalize my own actions through that...
America to me, was built on not sinking down to the level of terrorists, but instead on sticking to our morals and beating them our way...
do conservatives not think we can beat them our way, the American way? are we so incompetent in conservatives' eyes that we can't use our amazing American ingenuity to overcome a few terrorists in the sand in a moral way?
personally, I think we're better than that... but that's just an "immoral liberal" talking to "moral conservatives" right?
2006-12-09 11:24:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Because when it's all over someone has to clean the mess up.
Typically the World Court blames the bad guy.
Go big Red Go
2006-12-09 11:15:19 · answer #7 · answered by 43 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Only the braindead libs think that these terrorist scumbags are bound by international law, it's about time we stop running all inclusive vacation sites for these dirtbags and start torturing them!
2006-12-09 11:15:10 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
The only laws we should be bound by are the laws of physics.
2006-12-09 11:15:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
damn, they're not fighting fair. sob,sob sob. I want to take my toys and leave.
would you fight fair if your country was bombed s***less and invaded by a bunch of 22 year old horndogs.
fyi, the U.S. doesn't recognize international law, take Gitmo for instance...
2006-12-09 11:22:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋