What Are the US Goals In Ukraine?

[candycorn]

Goals are still not to commit troops to a war we can not win.

 

[Knowit]

While there have been a lot of BS tossed around about Crimea being forced or coerced by Russia and for that the US and EU are down on the referendum. The fact remains that Crimea has the largest gas and oil field on the southern Peninsula. That along with the Pres. wanting to go with Russia instead of the EU, which for sure would have dumped the US petro dollar, it make sense why the US sent in the Nazis to take down the government. They have done it all over the middle east.

 

[The Rabbi]

Goals are still not to commit troops to a war we can not win.

Then we'll lose this encounter. And eventually we will end up sending troops to a war we cannot win. That is the lesson of history.

 

[Redfish]

Are you actually suggesting there is no international law governing treaties? Wow. Just wow.
Even worse, we'll ignore our treaty obligations when we decide later on that it really wasn't in our interest after all.
Good thing the narco-libtards have never and will never be in charge of foreign policy. This country would become the Belgium of the world.

My point, there is no such thing as international law. There is no book of statutes that apply to the entire planet, there is no international court to enforce international laws, even if they did exist.

Countries comply with treaties because they either feel a moral obligation or they fear reprisal. They do not fear some non-existent international court.

People need to get over this foolish idea that there is some international law book that all countries must follow.

The idiots who claim that the crimea vote was "illegal" have no idea how the real world works. 96% of the people of that region voted to rejoin Russia. The will of the people will be upheld.

Gee, I must be one of those idiots you speak of. I've been thinking the ICJ under direction and enforcement of the UN at in the city of Den Haag, known internationally as THE HAGUE represented some kind of international court of justice. Maybe that is why they call it the ICJ? Thanks for letting us know it is some kind of hoax that doesn't exist.

please cite cases heard in that court where international treaties were broken and cite the punishment given to the countries that broke the treaties.

you are correct that it is a hoax. It has zero enforcement authority, just like the UN.

 

[The Rabbi]

My point, there is no such thing as international law. There is no book of statutes that apply to the entire planet, there is no international court to enforce international laws, even if they did exist.

Countries comply with treaties because they either feel a moral obligation or they fear reprisal. They do not fear some non-existent international court.

People need to get over this foolish idea that there is some international law book that all countries must follow.

The idiots who claim that the crimea vote was "illegal" have no idea how the real world works. 96% of the people of that region voted to rejoin Russia. The will of the people will be upheld.

Gee, I must be one of those idiots you speak of. I've been thinking the ICJ under direction and enforcement of the UN at in the city of Den Haag, known internationally as THE HAGUE represented some kind of international court of justice. Maybe that is why they call it the ICJ? Thanks for letting us know it is some kind of hoax that doesn't exist.

please cite cases heard in that court where international treaties were broken and cite the punishment given to the countries that broke the treaties.

you are correct that it is a hoax. It has zero enforcement authority, just like the UN.

Hmm, you may want to ask Saddam Hussein what happens when you break treaties.

 

[Redfish]

Are you actually suggesting there is no international law governing treaties? Wow. Just wow.
Even worse, we'll ignore our treaty obligations when we decide later on that it really wasn't in our interest after all.
Good thing the narco-libtards have never and will never be in charge of foreign policy. This country would become the Belgium of the world.

My point, there is no such thing as international law. There is no book of statutes that apply to the entire planet, there is no international court to enforce international laws, even if they did exist.

Countries comply with treaties because they either feel a moral obligation or they fear reprisal. They do not fear some non-existent international court.

People need to get over this foolish idea that there is some international law book that all countries must follow.

The idiots who claim that the crimea vote was "illegal" have no idea how the real world works. 96% of the people of that region voted to rejoin Russia. The will of the people will be upheld.

As pointed out, there is both international law and an international court.
Countries comply with treaty obligations because their credibility is at stake. Fail to live up to the terms of a treaty and no one will sign a treat with you anymore and the ones you did sign are suspect.
The people of that region were given a choice: join Russia now or join Russia later. There was no third option. So like the old Soviet votes the result was pretty much a given.
Wait until New Mexico votes to rejoin Mexico.

a court with no enforcement power is a joke. Where is this book of international statutes kept and how can I get a copy? Which country will refuse to sign a treaty with the USA because we did not get our military involved in crimea? you are grasping at straws and losing your grip

the referendum in Crimea was to rejoin russia or remain part of Ukraine. there was no need for a third option. 96% of the people want to rejoin Russia---case closed.

 

[The Rabbi]

On the ballot paper, voters were asked whether they would like Crimea to rejoin Russia.

A second question asked whether Crimea should return to its status under the 1992 constitution, which would give the region much greater autonomy.
There was no option for those who wanted the constitutional situation to remain unchanged.

BBC News - Crimea exit poll: About 93% back Russia union

International law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are a lo-lo on this matter. You need to quit posting so as not to embarrass yourself.

 

[Camp]

My point, there is no such thing as international law. There is no book of statutes that apply to the entire planet, there is no international court to enforce international laws, even if they did exist.

Countries comply with treaties because they either feel a moral obligation or they fear reprisal. They do not fear some non-existent international court.

People need to get over this foolish idea that there is some international law book that all countries must follow.

The idiots who claim that the crimea vote was "illegal" have no idea how the real world works. 96% of the people of that region voted to rejoin Russia. The will of the people will be upheld.

Gee, I must be one of those idiots you speak of. I've been thinking the ICJ under direction and enforcement of the UN at in the city of Den Haag, known internationally as THE HAGUE represented some kind of international court of justice. Maybe that is why they call it the ICJ? Thanks for letting us know it is some kind of hoax that doesn't exist.

please cite cases heard in that court where international treaties were broken and cite the punishment given to the countries that broke the treaties.

you are correct that it is a hoax. It has zero enforcement authority, just like the UN.

No, it isn't a hoax. International law may be hard to implement and enforce, but it has been done. The book of laws are the current active resolutions passed by the UN, which includes the approval of the Security Council. If a country or group of countries believe a treaty or resolution has been ignored or violated it has the option and process to have it heard in the UN or when appropriate the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

The First Gulf War or "Desert Storm" was implemented with the passage of Resolutions that inlcluded 660 through 668. Those resolutions gave 34 nations internationally recognized legal right to use military force against Iraq to force the removal of Irag forces from Kuwait.

This is not a new concept. The Korean War was fought with a UN Resolution and by a coalition of UN forces.

 

[Redfish]

Gee, I must be one of those idiots you speak of. I've been thinking the ICJ under direction and enforcement of the UN at in the city of Den Haag, known internationally as THE HAGUE represented some kind of international court of justice. Maybe that is why they call it the ICJ? Thanks for letting us know it is some kind of hoax that doesn't exist.

please cite cases heard in that court where international treaties were broken and cite the punishment given to the countries that broke the treaties.

you are correct that it is a hoax. It has zero enforcement authority, just like the UN.

No, it isn't a hoax. International law may be hard to implement and enforce, but it has been done. The book of laws are the current active resolutions passed by the UN, which includes the approval of the Security Council. If a country or group of countries believe a treaty or resolution has been ignored or violated it has the option and process to have it heard in the UN or when appropriate the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

The First Gulf War or "Desert Storm" was implemented with the passage of Resolutions that inlcluded 660 through 668. Those resolutions gave 34 nations internationally recognized legal right to use military force against Iraq to force the removal of Irag forces from Kuwait.

This is not a new concept. The Korean War was fought with a UN Resolution and by a coalition of UN forces.

you and Rabbi are showing naivete on this one. The UN has enforcement powers??? really??? Does the UN have an army? Don't be silly, the UN only has the military of member countries and they will only act if they think its in their national interests.

UN resolutions were why the first gulf war was engaged in???? they were an excuse not a reason.

As to international law, the international chamber of commerce in Paris has more authority than the UN, and its a joke too.

but I am still waiting for one of you to tell me where I can get a copy of the international statutes that are binding on every country in the world and will be enforced by the UN

 

[The Rabbi]

please cite cases heard in that court where international treaties were broken and cite the punishment given to the countries that broke the treaties.

you are correct that it is a hoax. It has zero enforcement authority, just like the UN.

No, it isn't a hoax. International law may be hard to implement and enforce, but it has been done. The book of laws are the current active resolutions passed by the UN, which includes the approval of the Security Council. If a country or group of countries believe a treaty or resolution has been ignored or violated it has the option and process to have it heard in the UN or when appropriate the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

The First Gulf War or "Desert Storm" was implemented with the passage of Resolutions that inlcluded 660 through 668. Those resolutions gave 34 nations internationally recognized legal right to use military force against Iraq to force the removal of Irag forces from Kuwait.

This is not a new concept. The Korean War was fought with a UN Resolution and by a coalition of UN forces.

you and Rabbi are showing naivete on this one. The UN has enforcement powers??? really??? Does the UN have an army? Don't be silly, the UN only has the military of member countries and they will only act if they think its in their national interests.

UN resolutions were why the first gulf war was engaged in???? they were an excuse not a reason.

As to international law, the international chamber of commerce in Paris has more authority than the UN, and its a joke too.

but I am still waiting for one of you to tell me where I can get a copy of the international statutes that are binding on every country in the world and will be enforced by the UN

OK so you're playing a zero sum game: either international law is exactly like American law or else it's nothing.
Do you see the fallacy once I state it that way?

 

[Redfish]

On the ballot paper, voters were asked whether they would like Crimea to rejoin Russia.

A second question asked whether Crimea should return to its status under the 1992 constitution, which would give the region much greater autonomy.
There was no option for those who wanted the constitutional situation to remain unchanged.

BBC News - Crimea exit poll: About 93% back Russia union

International law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are a lo-lo on this matter. You need to quit posting so as not to embarrass yourself.

from your wiki cite

"Much of international law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member of the international community is not obliged to abide by this type of international law, unless it has expressly consented to a particular course of conduct."


thanks for helping make my point. LO-LO? thats you on this one.

 

[The Rabbi]

On the ballot paper, voters were asked whether they would like Crimea to rejoin Russia.

A second question asked whether Crimea should return to its status under the 1992 constitution, which would give the region much greater autonomy.
There was no option for those who wanted the constitutional situation to remain unchanged.

BBC News - Crimea exit poll: About 93% back Russia union

International law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are a lo-lo on this matter. You need to quit posting so as not to embarrass yourself.

from your wiki cite

"Much of international law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member of the international community is not obliged to abide by this type of international law, unless it has expressly consented to a particular course of conduct."


thanks for helping make my point. LO-LO? thats you on this one.

If you think that supports any point you've tried to make Ihave news for you.

 

[Redfish]

No, it isn't a hoax. International law may be hard to implement and enforce, but it has been done. The book of laws are the current active resolutions passed by the UN, which includes the approval of the Security Council. If a country or group of countries believe a treaty or resolution has been ignored or violated it has the option and process to have it heard in the UN or when appropriate the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

The First Gulf War or "Desert Storm" was implemented with the passage of Resolutions that inlcluded 660 through 668. Those resolutions gave 34 nations internationally recognized legal right to use military force against Iraq to force the removal of Irag forces from Kuwait.

This is not a new concept. The Korean War was fought with a UN Resolution and by a coalition of UN forces.

you and Rabbi are showing naivete on this one. The UN has enforcement powers??? really??? Does the UN have an army? Don't be silly, the UN only has the military of member countries and they will only act if they think its in their national interests.

UN resolutions were why the first gulf war was engaged in???? they were an excuse not a reason.

As to international law, the international chamber of commerce in Paris has more authority than the UN, and its a joke too.

but I am still waiting for one of you to tell me where I can get a copy of the international statutes that are binding on every country in the world and will be enforced by the UN

OK so you're playing a zero sum game: either international law is exactly like American law or else it's nothing.
Do you see the fallacy once I state it that way?

laws and courts are only valid if they have real enforcement power. There is no court or body of law that is enforceable world wide.

Any country can ignore a UN ruling if they choose--and they do.

 

[Redfish]

BBC News - Crimea exit poll: About 93% back Russia union

International law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are a lo-lo on this matter. You need to quit posting so as not to embarrass yourself.

from your wiki cite

"Much of international law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member of the international community is not obliged to abide by this type of international law, unless it has expressly consented to a particular course of conduct."


thanks for helping make my point. LO-LO? thats you on this one.

If you think that supports any point you've tried to make Ihave news for you.

voluntary compliance with law makes the law moot.

 

[The Rabbi]

you and Rabbi are showing naivete on this one. The UN has enforcement powers??? really??? Does the UN have an army? Don't be silly, the UN only has the military of member countries and they will only act if they think its in their national interests.

UN resolutions were why the first gulf war was engaged in???? they were an excuse not a reason.

As to international law, the international chamber of commerce in Paris has more authority than the UN, and its a joke too.

but I am still waiting for one of you to tell me where I can get a copy of the international statutes that are binding on every country in the world and will be enforced by the UN

OK so you're playing a zero sum game: either international law is exactly like American law or else it's nothing.
Do you see the fallacy once I state it that way?

laws and courts are only valid if they have real enforcement power. There is no court or body of law that is enforceable world wide.

Any country can ignore a UN ruling if they choose--and they do.

That is incorrect. Laws and courts may be valid even with limited enforcement ability. They have a moral high ground that plays into any situation. Yes, nations can ignore them. Look at North Korea. But North Korea is one of the most isolated states on the planet, a virtual rogue. And its punishment has been extreme poverty.

 

[The Rabbi]

from your wiki cite

"Much of international law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member of the international community is not obliged to abide by this type of international law, unless it has expressly consented to a particular course of conduct."


thanks for helping make my point. LO-LO? thats you on this one.

If you think that supports any point you've tried to make Ihave news for you.

voluntary compliance with law makes the law moot.

That's one opinion. It's incorrect but certainly an opinion.

 

[Camp]

please cite cases heard in that court where international treaties were broken and cite the punishment given to the countries that broke the treaties.

you are correct that it is a hoax. It has zero enforcement authority, just like the UN.

No, it isn't a hoax. International law may be hard to implement and enforce, but it has been done. The book of laws are the current active resolutions passed by the UN, which includes the approval of the Security Council. If a country or group of countries believe a treaty or resolution has been ignored or violated it has the option and process to have it heard in the UN or when appropriate the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

The First Gulf War or "Desert Storm" was implemented with the passage of Resolutions that inlcluded 660 through 668. Those resolutions gave 34 nations internationally recognized legal right to use military force against Iraq to force the removal of Irag forces from Kuwait.

This is not a new concept. The Korean War was fought with a UN Resolution and by a coalition of UN forces.

you and Rabbi are showing naivete on this one. The UN has enforcement powers??? really??? Does the UN have an army? Don't be silly, the UN only has the military of member countries and they will only act if they think its in their national interests.

UN resolutions were why the first gulf war was engaged in???? they were an excuse not a reason.

As to international law, the international chamber of commerce in Paris has more authority than the UN, and its a joke too.

but I am still waiting for one of you to tell me where I can get a copy of the international statutes that are binding on every country in the world and will be enforced by the UN

Most enforcement comes in the form of specific economic sanctions. You seem to lazy to go the the UN site and find out how all the sanctions work and are working all over the world to force countries into compliance with international laws and UN Resolutions such as 2127 against The Central African Republic. So google that and see if it won't quide you to a UN site that can bring you up to speed on international law. And hey, they have that list you are looking for about international laws. It's almost as long and contained in as many books as the list and books of laws in whatever state you live in. Probably more since it covers the whole world and includes both maritime, airspace and outer space as well as the artic and antartic.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

liberals were incensed that the U.S. invaded Iraq.....i guess 18 or so UN resolutions weren't enough...

anybody here think the 'economic enforcement' that Obama has imposed will defeat Putin.......?

and where is the UN resolution.....Russia vetoed it.....

 

[The Rabbi]

liberals were incensed that the U.S. invaded Iraq.....i guess 18 or so UN resolutions weren't enough...

anybody here think the 'economic enforcement' that Obama has imposed will defeat Putin.......?

and where is the UN resolution.....Russia vetoed it.....

Obama's sanctions were a joke, even as he announced they were the harshest in post war history. Either he doesn't know what he is doing, or he is lying to the American people.

 

[Steinlight]

Rabbi, there is nothing short of World War 3 that can stop Crimea and other Russian areas of Ukraine from rejoining the motherland. But perhaps that is what you are the murderous war crzed neo-con cabal want.