Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jones" data-source="post: 169064" data-attributes="member: 4805"><p>What the Hague says:</p><p></p><p>What you said:</p><p></p><p>As we've seen time after time in this thread, when the existing definitions don't support your argument, you either add caveats where none exist or just make up your own definitions.</p><p></p><p>What the Hague says:</p><p></p><p> Note that it give <strong>no</strong> preconditions for ending an occupation. It just says what your resonsibilties are as long as you're there.</p><p></p><p>What you said:</p><p></p><p>More hand waving, you don't really seem to have a point except to add some caveats.</p><p></p><p> Once again with the hand waving. It's mildly interesting that you're trying to dispute Syria's occupation of Lebanon using an article titled <em>Syrian Occupation of Lebanon, </em>but in the end your opinion is irrelevant. The rest of the world viewed it as an occupation, because the rest of the world uses the definition in the Hague:</p><p></p><p> How they actually got there in the first place is not material to the point I was making. (hint- it had nothing to do with making an analogy, leave that straw man alone and try to pay attention for a change).</p><p></p><p> More hand waving that appears to have little relation to the topic we're discussing. The West Bank <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council" target="_blank">is considered United Nations Security Council</a>,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#_note-0" target="_blank">[1]</a> the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly" target="_blank">United Nations General Assembly</a>,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#_note-1" target="_blank">[2]</a> the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice" target="_blank">International Court of Justice</a>,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#_note-2" target="_blank">[3]</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Red_Cross" target="_blank">International Committee of the Red Cross</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#_note-3" target="_blank">[4]</a> to be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories" target="_blank">Israeli occupied</a> because they adhere to the definition in the Hague:</p><p></p><p> Your own opinion, like the caveats and "add ons" you keep trying to insert into International Law, are irrelevant.</p><p></p><p>Once again, that's just your opinion. It's NOT International Law.</p><p></p><p></p><p> More of your opinions. I must admit you have a knack for making up you own definitions. Perhaps you should try your hand at writing your own set of International Laws, since the ones we already have don't seem to suit you?</p><p></p><p>This seems to be more of your tactic of "post a whole lot of irrelevant stuff and then declare myself the winner"</p><p></p><p>Nowhere in any of those transcripts does anyone say that the US <strong>cannot</strong> withdraw from Iraq because it would violate International Law. Of course they don't, because they know better.</p><p>Here's the originals, have another look:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090723082024/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm" target="_blank">Geneva Conventions</a></p><p></p><p><a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp" target="_blank">Hague Conventions</a></p><p><a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm</a></p><p> Take care</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jones, post: 169064, member: 4805"] What the Hague says: What you said: As we've seen time after time in this thread, when the existing definitions don't support your argument, you either add caveats where none exist or just make up your own definitions. What the Hague says: Note that it give [B]no[/B] preconditions for ending an occupation. It just says what your resonsibilties are as long as you're there. What you said: More hand waving, you don't really seem to have a point except to add some caveats. Once again with the hand waving. It's mildly interesting that you're trying to dispute Syria's occupation of Lebanon using an article titled [I]Syrian Occupation of Lebanon, [/I]but in the end your opinion is irrelevant. The rest of the world viewed it as an occupation, because the rest of the world uses the definition in the Hague: How they actually got there in the first place is not material to the point I was making. (hint- it had nothing to do with making an analogy, leave that straw man alone and try to pay attention for a change). More hand waving that appears to have little relation to the topic we're discussing. The West Bank [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council']is considered United Nations Security Council[/URL],[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#_note-0'][1][/URL] the [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly']United Nations General Assembly[/URL],[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#_note-1'][2][/URL] the [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice']International Court of Justice[/URL],[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#_note-2'][3][/URL] and the [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Red_Cross']International Committee of the Red Cross[/URL][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#_note-3'][4][/URL] to be [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories']Israeli occupied[/URL] because they adhere to the definition in the Hague: Your own opinion, like the caveats and "add ons" you keep trying to insert into International Law, are irrelevant. Once again, that's just your opinion. It's NOT International Law. More of your opinions. I must admit you have a knack for making up you own definitions. Perhaps you should try your hand at writing your own set of International Laws, since the ones we already have don't seem to suit you? This seems to be more of your tactic of "post a whole lot of irrelevant stuff and then declare myself the winner" Nowhere in any of those transcripts does anyone say that the US [B]cannot[/B] withdraw from Iraq because it would violate International Law. Of course they don't, because they know better. Here's the originals, have another look: [URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20090723082024/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm']Geneva Conventions[/URL] [URL='http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp']Hague Conventions[/URL] [URL='http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm'][/URL] Take care [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top