Should international law be broken be deemed necessary and justifiable such as through the use of military action?

 

Such as was the invasion in Iraq 2003 deemed necessary despite what appears to be international laws being broken in the process?

there's no point in 'transfer' invested money to create and apply a law to break it... and make it a waste of time, thought politics are proven experts in doing so repeatedly no matter the country, time and party.

if one cross one line of this kind what's the limit then?

if you make a law of this level is bad that it be broken.

 

but some times seem to be justifiable... thought the danger is, once you open a locked door, you'll be able and supported to open more, then who establish the limit? :confused:

 

(soz i'm pretty :freak: about something that just happened on politics in my country today).

there's no point in 'transfer' invested money to create and apply a law to break it... and make it a waste of time, thought politics are proven experts in doing so repeatedly no matter the country, time and party.

if one cross one line of this kind what's the limit then?

if you make a law of this level is bad that it be broken.

 

but some times seem to be justifiable... thought the danger is, once you open a locked door, you'll be able and supported to open more, then who establish the limit? :confused:

 

(soz i'm pretty :freak: about something that just happened on politics in my country today).

 

Good point.

not international law case, but just i'll use what just happened in this country today -i don't know if it's been said abroad-

 

this weekend we celebrate constition and as all years airport air radar controllers (civil) which get payed a good bunch of money didn't want to work since today, so as they didn't went to work the air space was closed today, only army airports worked, hundred of flights cancelled and a whole chaos in the country.

 

government did a bunch of brief laws today in which they forced civil air radar controllers were going to work under army laws, so if they refuse to work they will get punished severely, even going to jail for a time of 9 years, because that is a national service that have to be working no matter what.

 

half country has been following the whole event today, sounded too weird for most of us...

 

well thing is, it caused a precedure now, so now people will fear to do their right to protest cause if they will do so, up to the same point as those have done, they will get militarized liked or not. :confused:

Only when George Bush says it's ok.

Only when George Bush says it's ok.

 

Thought you might say something along those lines!! I supported Iraq at the time and I still do. I firmly believe it will get there and it is on the road to recovery. People underestimate the sheer terror and disgust of Hussein's regime where a considerably higher amount of people died a day than they do today. The basis upon which they went to war was proved to be catastrophically wrong but that's in the past. What matters is the present and the future for Iraq so instead of dilly-dallying about the past about Blair and Bush politicians should concentrate on keeping Iraq on the road to recovery from years of tyranny and terror.

I agree we should focus on the future. We owe them that at the very least. It would be best for them if we got the hell out and didn't interfere with them anymore. Sadly we'll stay there for a very long time causing more problems in the name of "freedom" and "fighting terrorism". If we really wanted to help, we'd let them completely govern themselves without our military presence there at all.

Laws do not always apply, though one should adhere to them wherever possible.

This is how I view it, but everybody else who isn't either my best friends or I shouldn't break the law because I don't trust them :P

From my ponit of view its should not be broken. I don't know how many of you heard of Kosovo and NATO bombing Serbia in 1999. Its still agruable if that was jusified or not. Seriba attacked people in Kosovo (which was part of Seriba) and NATO bombed Belgrade (the capital) but they bombed only TV towers, militery facilities and bridges, even though there were civil vicitims. NATO was led by USA and they did the bombing without UN's approval, which is breaking international law.

 

And there is one more thing that pisses me off in international law. Most of the countries in the world had to sign a paper to be a part of Internation Criminal Court in Den Haag, The Netherlands. Clinton singed the paper but Bush moved Clinton's sign and USA is not part of the ICC. And if you want to "spred democracy" all over the world you should be part of international court.

 

There are million more examples of violating the international law. So I don't see a point of having one is the biggerst and millitary and economy the storngerst countires violate it every single day. But the small countries have to value the law. Its just a story of strog and weak counrties.