1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotSo other countries should attack any other country that, who knows, MIGHT have nuclear weapons even though there isn't any evidence that they do?? Is that your "idea"? Would the world have been safer place if there had been a war against South Africa by, I presume, the US and other Western powers?
unfortunately wikipedia is down, i cannot research your "assertions" (opinions?) at the moment ...
and, "after the fact" as in the victors define history ...
there apparently wasn't an iota of evidence that S.A. had a nuclear program, either, even after inspections, until they voluntarily disclosed their possession and destruction (prior to the fall of apartheid?) ...
Originally posted by no1marauderwasn't germany's annexation a preemptive strike, or to prevent the abuse of germans living in the borderlands? ...
You really need to actually read something about the Nuremberg Trials and Crimes Against Peace; your ignorance is (as usual) appalling. If wikipedia is your only source to research anything, I feel sorry for ya.
Originally posted by no1marauderd--n, we've got another one of those it's-all-about-the-oil noodniks ...
So other countries should attack any other country that, who knows, MIGHT have nuclear weapons even though there isn't any evidence that they do?? Is that your "idea"? Would the world have been safer place if there had been a war against South Africa by, I presume, the US and other Western powers?
Originally posted by zeeblebotNo. Pre-emptive strikes are only justified in international law against immediate threats where there is no time for any other act. This is the traditional Caroline rule which was reaffirmed at Nuremberg. The second reason while a claim of the Nazis is not a valid reason for war or threat of war in IL.
wasn't germany's annexation a preemptive strike, or to prevent the abuse of germans living in the borderlands? ...
Both these claims were extensively discussed at Nuremberg; you really do need to read something on the subject.
Originally posted by no1marauderdid the british attack germany first, or was it the other way around?
No. Pre-emptive strikes are only justified in international law against immediate threats where there is no time for any other act. This is the traditional Caroline rule which was reaffirmed at Nuremberg. The second reason while a claim of the Nazis is not a valid reason for war or threat of war in IL.
Both these claims were extensively discussed at Nuremberg; you really do need to read something on the subject.
Originally posted by no1marauderIsreal did that back in the 70's when the french sold Iraq a nuclear reactor.
It will be for that Government to show a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.
Daniel Webster, US Sec. of State, April 24, 1841
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/britain/br-1842d.htm
Originally posted by no1marauderscrolling down an interminably long page of legal history, we come to the bottom and find that the US response to this invasion of its sovereignty was to pass a law against it.
It will be for that Government to show a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.
Daniel Webster, US Sec. of State, April 24, 1841
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/britain/br-1842d.htm
Originally posted by scottishinnzthe main problem is that the north sea fields would only supply 3 pct of the annual US demand ....
lol, sounds familiar. Same reason as Iraq then? Just a different cover story. But who'd be in Bush's "coalition of the willing" without Blair?? Oh, I forgot Micronesia....
(ok, i made that up, don't go googling it.)
Originally posted by slappy115The Isreali attack on the Iraqi unfinished nuclear facility was a violation of international law. It was condemned by a UN Security Council resolution. Even the right wing government of Reagan condemned the attack.
Isreal did that back in the 70's when the french sold Iraq a nuclear reactor.