Skip to main content

View Diary: White House release: Draft legislation for Authorization for Use of US Armed Forces (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  international law has never been anything (5+ / 0-)

    other than what the big dogs say.

    •  That is the sad truth (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PatriciaVa

      of historical reality. What is different now is that one dog is so much bigger than all of the others. It is only the constituent parts of the big dog that have any possible power to control it.

      •  Four other dogs have a veto... (0+ / 0-)

        On enforcement of "international law", so-called. And two of those dogs care more about propping up the Syrian government than they do about human rights.

        Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

        by SaoMagnifico on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 06:15:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You include Britain and France in that? n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  Permanent members of the UNSC... (0+ / 0-)

            With veto power are: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China.

            Two of those countries (the U.S. and France) are considering military action.

            Two of those countries (Russia and the PRC) have committed to veto authorization of force at the UNSC.

            Among the P5, 3-2 isn't a winning vote. Even 4-1 isn't a winning vote. And there is no other way to enforce international law.

            Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

            by SaoMagnifico on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 06:24:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you mistake the UN (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Justanothernyer

              for international law. They are not the same. International law predates the UN by centuries, and does not embody it.

              For example, the treaty invoked in this case dates from 1925, well before the UN existed. The biggest mistake people who really want to give teeth to international sanctions is placing all their eggs in the UN basket. The numbers you cite pretty much invalidate any legitimacy the UNSC can claim. The PRC and the Russian Federation have even less right to claim moral authority in international relations than the US.

              47 is the new 51!

              by nickrud on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 06:31:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  That doesn't match with your claim that (0+ / 0-)

              all four of them are trying to prop up Syria.

    •  The US would not be the US today w/o having.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaoMagnifico, snoopydawg

      ...violated intl law, numerous times.  And it goes well beyond Manifest Destiny.

      But I'm not calling out the US for doing this.

      Major powers, as you say, will do as they please.

      As McNamara once said, had the US lost WW2 (and ceased being a world power) President Truman would have been tried for crimes against humanity for firebombing Dresden.

      The President's objective should be to pursue policies which serve US interests.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

      by PatriciaVa on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 05:58:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. Hell, we deliberately brutally sodomized (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snoopydawg

        several kids in the hopes of getting their parents to talk.  But of course, there is no reason to call out the US for doing that because after all the President's objective should be to pursue policies which serve US interests.

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 08:21:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site