JC Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis

[John K Clark]

"Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au>

> This is getting almost too hypothetical to deal with as too
> many facts have to change for it to have been so.

So you're saying your powers of imagination are so weak you can not
envision a hypothetical where the international community condemns an action
that nevertheless turns out to be for the good. You treat the words
"international law" as a synonym for virtue and infallibility, I don't.

>  The USS Enterprise.  Are you convinced?

What do you think? Like it or not the ultimate commander of the USS
Enterprise is George W Bush not international law. The world might indeed be
a better place if that was untrue but it is not.

> you only acknowledge the existence of laws that have
> force behind them.

You tell me, if there is no force behind the "law" how is it different from
a suggestion? The entire purpose of law is to protect people, only a fool
would entrust their safety to something that has no power.

>The law doesn't cease to exist merely because it is not applied in
> some cases.

I agree, but the problem is "international law" is not applied in ANY cases;
or rather it is applied ONLY when the major NATIONAL powers want it to. And
that makes it just the national law of the big powers. I'm not saying that's 
a
good thing but that's the way it is.

> It seems to me that you only see law as being about compulsion.

For me to consider something a law I must first respect it. For me to
consider something a good law I must think it can protect me. International
law fails on both counts.

  John K Clark