Agree with Sparhawk here. Losing a bit of focus here.
I have a few points though.
1) As amusing as I find all this talk of the Mexican army, where did trench warfare come in? And no tanks or planes? This is WW2 you are talking about. It was WW1 that consisted almost entirely of trench warfare and no (or rather few and very crude) tanks and planes.
2) Dragonlich - you say that there is "no international law" and then back this up by saying that it is like British case law. As a British person I can proudly say that we do have a law and it is does a very good job and has done for a long time now. Just because international law bears more resemblance to British law than US law doesn't mean it is any less real.
3) Both sides cannot be right when pointing at 1441. It is the norm in the British (and I believe American) legal systems for two very eminent and intelligent lawyers (or teams of lawyers) to come before a judge and argue very passionate and very coherent cases. Both legal teams say contradictory things and the judge will use existing law to decide who is right and who is wrong - they never say "well actually you are both equally right, so I'm not going to make any ruling at all". Now often companies and countries will go to their very skilled, very well paid lawyers and say "can we do this" [often meaning "can we get away with this under the law"]. And often the lawyers will tell them that they can. And the team of lawyers for the other company/country will be telling their employers the same thing. It takes an impartial judge or team of judges to decide who is right and who is wrong. BUT there is a right and there is a wrong. As it is in domestic law, so it is in international law.
4) I have set out (near bottom of page 1) what I think should have happened in Iraq - and it wasn't a US/UK invasion - and would be happy to elaborate on it or defend it.
__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!
Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 06-10-2003 at 05:42 AM..
|