Aileron Posted March 9, 2004 Report Posted March 9, 2004 What I mentioned is the widely accepted view held by virtually all political scientists. This isn't merely my opinion, it is regarded as a premise. It is a fundimental component of political science and is universally held to be true. I'm not going to sit here trying to prove that one plus one equals two to you. If you think 1+1=3, I can't disprove you, because both statements are !@#$%^&*umed premises. If you can't accept the basic premises of politics, there is no point in this discussion. Occupied nations are unique exceptions to the rule. Under technical defignitions, they are territory of the occupier until released, but usually they are released quickly enough that people still refer to them as nations.
Bacchus Posted March 9, 2004 Report Posted March 9, 2004 i think i lost it...can anyone recap for me plz? What premises? political "scientists"? politics = 2? eep ~runs off a cliff~
MonteZuma Posted March 9, 2004 Report Posted March 9, 2004 What I mentioned is the widely accepted view held by virtually all political scientists. This isn't merely my opinion, it is regarded as a premise. It is a fundimental component of political science and is universally held to be true. I'm not going to sit here trying to prove that one plus one equals two to you. If you think 1+1=3, I can't disprove you, because both statements are !@#$%^&*umed premises. If you can't accept the basic premises of politics, there is no point in this discussion. Occupied nations are unique exceptions to the rule. Under technical defignitions, they are territory of the occupier until released, but usually they are released quickly enough that people still refer to them as nations.If the US claimed, even temporarily, that Iraq was US territory, then that would be annexation and would be illegal under international law. The US is merely exercising control in an occupied nation. This is not the same thing as annexation. While most dictionaries of international law might tell you that every nation is sovereign, the fact is there are many nations that aren't. Stop looking at your dictionary and start looking at what is happening in the real world. Not everything fits inside the box. Not every nation is independent and self-governing. Monte.
Dav Posted March 9, 2004 Report Posted March 9, 2004 and another thing is that not all nations have consideration for others in their political decitions unless thay get immidiate direct benifit.
Aileron Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 Now that post I can agree with. I was merely argueing by textbook definitions. What I meant by the technicality (of occupied nations being territory) is that we can do whatever we want with Iraq at the moment. Certain actions would result in massive political fallout, but at the moment if the US gave an order, Iraq would have to comply. This is as opposed to the US giving France an order, in which France has the right to say "screw you". To be political, every country in history would call an occupied nation something else, but that is their status inside the textbooks. I'm talking from a theorhetical standpoint, you are talking from a real world one. We are both right. However, we digress from the point. Regardless, the US is undisputably sovereign. The fact that we were capable of not signing on to Kyoto is proof of this. This brings me back to my origional point. Regardless of weather Kyoto is right or wrong, critical for the planet or merely political, the US has no obligation to sign on. If the world were to incorporate Kyoto into "international law", there is still no guarentee we would sign on, for international law is merely a series of political agreements that give a false premise that there is order in geopolitics.
Bacchus Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 This brings me back to my origional point. Regardless of weather Kyoto is right or wrong' date=' critical for the planet or merely political, the US has no obligation to sign on[/quote'] UN or else: Sorry sir, our planet is going bust...US: So...?UN or else: errr...you're pwning the planet sir...US: True. Your point?UN or else: mmh...we think you should be accountable for some of your...ahem..policies regarding environment...~hides~US: OMFG! we're being REPRESSED! ATTACH TO ATTACK! lol, silly americans
Dav Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 lol EDIT: US: OMFG we're being REPRESSED! ATTATCH TO TK!
Recommended Posts