Funny that - your spin on International Law! Are you referring to International Humanitarian Law (IHL) from which we derive 'Jus ad Bellum' and 'Jus in Bellum' or International Human Rights Legistlation (IHRL) which seems to be the vehicle used to deny the sacrosanct nature of sovereign territory. I seem to remaember the United States, for three months, refused to allow the use of the word 'genocide' in respect of Rwanda (Apr 94- Jun 94) allowing the murder of many (own understatement). By declaring Saddam to have WMD, Bush could claim that Iraq posed a danger and a threat to the US, thereby legitimising the invasion under IHL. Machievelli would have been proud. By the way, if Senator Kerry achieves a defeat of GWB in Nov, Tony Blair will look very lonely in Europe.
Am looking for as much info as possible on Von Clausewitz, especially on the Eternal triangle - please help!!!!!
Current Events » in reply to re: Threats of force are a violation of international law
re: Threats of force are a violation of international law
The whole thread (27 posts)
- Chairman of the JCS: "We've been wrong on every count"
- So was occupying Germany or Japan a failure?
- Of Japan, Germany and the United States, who struck the first blows in WWII?
- National security involves WAR. War is not nice. Anything that is not nice is rejected by the left.
- So was occupying Germany or Japan a failure?