Afghans need Canadians now, ambassador says
- Thread starter Mogz
- Start date
Depends on which side you take:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
RE: Afghans need Canadian
Another important fact to consider is that as far as my understanding goes, the US "war" on Iraq is illegal even under US laws as it was not formally declared by Congress, but rather by some sort of executive order from the president, which is not legal in that country, let alone internationally.. sorry to stray off topic
Another important fact to consider is that as far as my understanding goes, the US "war" on Iraq is illegal even under US laws as it was not formally declared by Congress, but rather by some sort of executive order from the president, which is not legal in that country, let alone internationally.. sorry to stray off topic
Nice try Jersay, the UN didn't authorize the Serbian war, hence, according to you, it was illegal, so care to answer my question? Was Canada part of an illegal war or not?
Re: RE: Afghans need Canadian
Congress hasn't authorized war since WWII and there have been UN approved wars since that the US participated, would that make them all illegal?
mabudon said:
Congress hasn't authorized war since WWII and there have been UN approved wars since that the US participated, would that make them all illegal?
By the definition of an illegal war, as specified by Jersay, and if the United Nations did not indeed sanction any such intervention, then I would surmize by logical conclusion that yes, Canada had acted in contravention of international law.
I think not, you raise an interesting question; when it comes to matters of foreign affairs, which take precedent — national, or international law? Should nations have the right to act in contravention of international law, in order to meet national obligations, or vice versa?
Re: RE: Afghans need Canadians now, ambassador says
And I'm sure the Serbian people would say THANK YOU CANADA, for not waiting around till Koffi scratched his balls to do something about it.
FiveParadox said:
And I'm sure the Serbian people would say THANK YOU CANADA, for not waiting around till Koffi scratched his balls to do something about it.
I am just stating what it is and you take it as you want ITN. Because it wasn't supported by the United Nations it would from my viwpoint be an illegal war.
From what I saw from the pictures of Serbia with the run down buildings and the poverty, I am not to sure because no one not one international nation has assisted in rebuilding their services that were targeted in the war. They are left to crumble.
Jersay said:
And what does that tell you about the UN Jersay? I'll tell you what it tells me, it tells me, Canada had the balls to do something, when the UN and EUROPE, didn't want to be bothered by it. Allowing genocide in their own backyard.
Sadly ITN, killings occured but on what side.
10,000 Albanians were supposed to have died in the fighting, it turns out only 2,000 bodies were ever found, most killed by security forces but others by fighting.
And what about the erb minority that numbered around 300,000 who were ethnically clensed from th area as NATO sat around and did nothing. And the U.N has had to go in and fix up the province because it is the U.N that is running the province now.
10,000 Albanians were supposed to have died in the fighting, it turns out only 2,000 bodies were ever found, most killed by security forces but others by fighting.
And what about the erb minority that numbered around 300,000 who were ethnically clensed from th area as NATO sat around and did nothing. And the U.N has had to go in and fix up the province because it is the U.N that is running the province now.
Jersay said:
Poverty and rebuilding in Serbia will be cured eventually, the dead aren't coming back.
But without the bombing Serbia might not be in this position.
it could be in a worst off one or a better. Who knows.
it could be in a worst off one or a better. Who knows.
Well I know the number was inflated, whether it was 3000 or 5000 or 100,000 I don't know, but clearly there was something going on, otherwise Milosevic wouldn't have died in prison. What would be the cutoff point to help a country? 100? 1000? 10,000?
With all this talk of "international law", i'd like to point out that these laws are dictated by a NON-MILITARY BODY, furthermore this same body has sat idle in the past during Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, and the Congo to name but a few. If you follow international conflicts you'll know that literally hundreds of thousands have perished in those conflicts because the U.N. did not act. The U.N. has become a typical bureaucracy. It has so many "checks and balances" that it is simply incapable of acting anymore. Anyone that throws their FULL supprt (I say FULL because I still support aspects of the UN) behind the UN and deems it the answer to everything (whether a War is just for example) is condoning the past mistakes they've made in the nations listed above. In essence you're supporting the mass murders of MILLIONS of innocent people. Think that isn't the case? Well you're wrong. If you deem a War unjust simply because the U.N. didn't approve, then you're deeming that every action in the past the U.N. has not supported (Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, the Congo) as also being an "unjust" operation. The U.N. abondon Somalia, and who had to go in and save it? The U.S., Canada, and Pakistan. Three nations on the planet stood up and said publically "this is wrong", and ACTED. Once again in the 21st Century we're seeing U.N. inaction. They claim to be all about human rights and peace, yet they won't support the mission in Afghanistan, even though Canada, one of the Worlds most credible" nations is there. They won't support it even though Afghanistan is the 5th poorest nation on the planet and needs more help than the coalition nations can give. They won't support the coalition because we're using Force, even though Force is the only way to ensure the safety and security of Afghanistan. In short the U.N. talks big but isn't willing to make sacrifices to reach the goals. In essence, the body no longer functions.
Mogz America abandoned Somalia.
U.N forces remained in Somalia until 1995 to 1997 feeding people who needed to be fed.
And there have been problems and people have been killed but it is because of the burecratic constraint of the United Nations by individual nations and their personal interests.
It should be that once you send a U.N force to a certain area they should change their mission with the evolving situation on the ground.
U.N forces remained in Somalia until 1995 to 1997 feeding people who needed to be fed.
And there have been problems and people have been killed but it is because of the burecratic constraint of the United Nations by individual nations and their personal interests.
It should be that once you send a U.N force to a certain area they should change their mission with the evolving situation on the ground.