Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (623)	12/17/2002 11:57:11 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

That is quite a mild interpretation of Bush's speech. Two things catch my eye in Bush's declaration: (1) a WMD attack on (...) its [US's] overseas troops (2) possibility of nukes (1) I find this almost funny. An invaded country defends itself in any way possible. If they have sarine gas and spray it on US troops, I find that revolting but normal. I mean, everybody knows that US is going to invade Iraq. Whatever the inspectors say, Bush wants "regime change", because even if Saddam does not have weapons now, he might have them one day. So, not only did the US manage to get an inspection into what is where and just what weapons Iraq has and does not have, but they also want to make sure Iraq will not try its hardest to kill their soldiers? (2) Threatening nuclear warfare in case your invading soldiers are attacked by biological/chemical weapons is quite extreme, I believe. What do you think? You might find this interesting. I see use or threat of use of nuclear weapons are found unlawful except in extreme conditions where a country's survival is at stake. (I would love to see W. Bush argue the gassing of invading US troops is such a condition of life or death for the whole of the US). dannen.com On the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons International Court of Justice The Hague, 8 July 1996 The opinion of the International Court of Justice ("World Court") came in response to a request from the United Nations General Assembly. The Court found that the threat or use of nuclear weapons "would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict." However, the Court was unable to make a determination "in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake." In general, the Court based its ruling on the body of international law protecting civilian populations. Its analysis cited specifically Hague II and IV, the Nuremberg Principles, and the Geneva Conventions. (...) A threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51 is unlawful; It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the current state of International Law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake; Done in English and French, the English text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace, the Hague, this eighth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and ninety six, in two copies, one of which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the other transmitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.