Nation vs International Laws

[JonC]

@Ben1445 just because I cannot quote you a law does not mean there is not one.

I have to point out an underlying principle of @Silver*** .

What did he not say when he misrepresented international law?


The US did not violate UN law because it entered Venezuela and invaded that compound.

The violation was the US did not have UN approval. He dropped off the significant part of that law.

BUT the UN had already said Maduro was guilty of crimes against humanity. The US, Canada, the UK...they had all said Maduro was not the legitimate leader of Venezuela and needed to be removed.


There is only one reason the US capture of the terrorist was a violation of UN law. That is it was not an action approved by the UN.

This alone shows you the degree liberalism has created into Canada. Even their "conservatives" are progressive liberals compared to Canada just a few decades ago.

There are only two reasons the UN would not approve removing Maduro. They are China and Russia.

 

[Silverhair]

You could say the US invaded a compound. But saying the US invaded a foreign country is a lie.

The compound was in the country and to get to it the US had to invade that country. Your argument does not hold water.

it was the only moral choice mot only because of Maduro's crimes against Venezuela but also for his crimes against the US snd Canada.

His crimes against Venezuela should have been dealt with in that country even if the system did not allow for it.

Whatever crimes against the US did not give them the right to invade and kidnap.

Those who object, who insist Maduro was the legitimate leader of Venezuela, are those who would insist Hitler was the legitimate leader of the Netherlands were that a contemporary situation. But they are wrong.

Jon now you are showing just how desperate you are to justify the US invasion.

I did not say he was the legitimate leader of Venezuela but he was their head of state just as Biden was the head of state when Trum* claimed the election was stolen.

That was morally right, to say otherwise is immoral.

The invasion of Venezuela cannot be morally justified no matter how much you would like it to be.

It is not immoral to point out that the actions of the US were morally wrong.

 

[Ben1445]

@Ben1445 just because I cannot quote you a law does not mean there is not one.

So we’ll just pretend that there is one since you think there should be? I don’t live in the world of make-believe. find the standard before you hold anybody to it.

The question you have to answer is why do you think it is morally ok for the US to invade another country and kidnap it's leader?

Murder is not okay. If you think that the leader of a country gets a pass because he is the leader then you need to explain your lack of morals.

It seems you Americans will go to any length to justify your rogue leader.

And your rouge leaders?? Because they let bloody handed communists go unchallenged are saints? Not in my book.

But we have gone back and forth on this and you still support him so live with the consequences.

We have made no significant enemies because of the taking of Maduro that we did not have before. And if you mean that Canada saw maduro as the tipping point, I would say it is because they had only not been paying attention to the fact that they were not being much of an ally. The cozy up to communism things is a common occurrence with you guys. How would you expect us to act when you ally yourselves with nations who have declared themselves to be at war with the US?

 

[Silverhair]

I have to point out an underlying principle of @Silver*** .

What did he not say when he misrepresented international law?


The US did not violate UN law because it entered Venezuela and invaded that compound.

The violation was the US did not have UN approval. He dropped off the significant part of that law.

BUT the UN had already said Maduro was guilty of crimes against humanity. The US, Canada, the UK...they had all said Maduro was not the legitimate leader of Venezuela and needed to be removed.


There is only one reason the US capture of the terrorist was a violation of UN law. That is it was not an action approved by the UN.

This alone shows you the degree liberalism has created into Canada. Even their "conservatives" are progressive liberals compared to Canada just a few decades ago.

There are only two reasons the UN would not approve removing Maduro. They are China and Russia.

So at the bottom line what you are saying is that the US or any other country can do as they please. Why hold to rules/laws that you do not like or that hinder your plans.

That view would be welcomed by all those other rogue nations.

But then again the US invaded and stated a war with Iran because they felt like it. A war that they are going to/has already lost.

 

[Silverhair]

We have made no significant enemies because of the taking of Maduro that we did not have before. And if you mean that Canada saw maduro as the tipping point, I would say it is because they had only not been paying attention to the fact that they were not being much of an ally. The cozy up to communism things is a common occurrence with you guys. How would you expect us to act when you ally yourselves with nations who have declared themselves to be at war with the US?

The country that we see being cozy with communism is the USA. Or do you not know that your great leader considers Russia, China and North Korea friends of the US. He treats those countries better than the countries that the US calls it's allies.

Clean up your own backyard before you comment on others.

I use to wonder why they would use the rally cry of "no more kings" when they referred to Trum* but now I understand why they did.

 

[JonC]

The compound was in the country and to get to it the US had to invade that country.

Yes, the compound was in Venezuela.

The embassy Canada entered was in Iran (they illegally entered Iran by misrepresenting their purpose).

But no, your reasoning is flawed. What made the capture a violation of UN law? It was not raiding the foreign compound. It was doing so without UN approval. UN approval could not be gained (Russia and China are P5 countries).


You believe that nations not directly attacked were wrong to fight Nazi Germany. You believe that the lives of people belong to whatever government takes over that country.

I understand that today's Canada views the liberation of the Netherlands as an immoral crime while at the same time using ot for patriotic reasons.


I understand because our conversation has led me to read more about Canada's moral decline.

Canada's decline has been the subject of many research and peer-reviewed articles (I was surprised, actually).

Cana is vonsidered an "international anomaly" because of the nature of its "left-leaning" liberalism.

Scholars link this in part to its creation, but more so to to the 1960's as Canada searched for identity.

Bottom line is today Canada is more left-liberal than European nations. It is not Canada following the EU in decline but Canada surpassing the EU via a diffetent route.


This is why you view the illegal invasion of foreign nations, once acvomplished, as legitimate and permanent. It is why yhe lives of the Venezuelan people do not matter to you (and most Canadians). They do not matter to you because they are not in your sphere.

You do not care about Canadian lives lost due to narco-terrorism because, as a Canadian, you live in a culture that foes not value human life.

You may be a right-leaning liberal, but that is only within the context of left-liberalism. You are on the more moderate side of immorality.

 

[JonC]

So at the bottom line what you are saying is that the US or any other country can do as they please. Why hold to rules/laws that you do not like or that hinder your plans.

That view would be welcomed by all those other rogue nations.

But then again the US invaded and stated a war with Iran because they felt like it. A war that they are going to/has already lost.

No, I am saying nations should not allow the UN to prevent it from acting morally - especially when the UN law is just words bearing no enforcement capability or consequences.

All sovereign nations are rogue. But "rogue nation" is a term that refers to threatening world peace.

Here your liberalism shows. You say we should allow a terrorist to oppress and murder the Venezuelan people, kill US and Canadian citizens, because it results in peace.

I say that is immoral.

 

[JonC]

One article notes that Canada was distinctly formed as "anti-American" nation. It is natural for Canada to think more of the EU and consider American people (to include South Americans) as having less value as human beings.

Canada and the US liberating European countries is considered just, but liberating non-European countries (especially American countries) is a immoral misuse of military power.

Canada holds a lower view of American people just as the English (and later, many 18th -19th century US citizens) held lower views of Native American people.

It is natural for @Silverhair to condemn the use of military measures to liberate the Venezuelan people (or any other American people) because in his worldview they are of less importance. The focus is keeping nations at peace regardless of the cost and lives destroyed as long as it does not interfere with Canadian life too much.

I suspect if Venezuela was a central European country @Silverhair would take a different stance (depending on its importance to the EU).



EDIT: I need to correct one thing.

The left-liberalism of Canada is an anomaly, but it is not "liberalism" but "neo-liberalism".

I was reading a UNH peer-reviewed article which made and explained the difference.

Canada is no longer following the EU. It is paving the way to where the liberalism of the EU nations ate going.

 

[th1bill]

I have a friend that was on the execution list. He had to sneak out of the country.Once hereIt cost him several thousand dollarsTo get his mother and dad out of that country. International Enforcement of drug laws does not constitute and Invasion.

 

[JonC]

I need to add - while Canada may not be an ideal country in which to live, it is a wonderful country to visit.

Same with Germany. I lived there for years, in the community while stationed in Germany. I chose not to live on a military base. Great place to visit (one of my favorite places to visit). Not such a great place to live.


But this is because of my values and culture. Just as Canadians have been anti-republican democracy since its creation so also is our republican-democracy something we value.

 

[Silverhair]

Yes, the compound was in Venezuela.

The embassy Canada entered was in Iran (they illegally entered Iran by misrepresenting their purpose).

But no, your reasoning is flawed. What made the capture a violation of UN law? It was not raiding the foreign compound. It was doing so without UN approval. UN approval could not be gained (Russia and China are P5 countries).


You believe that nations not directly attacked were wrong to fight Nazi Germany. You believe that the lives of people belong to whatever government takes over that country.

I understand that today's Canada views the liberation of the Netherlands as an immoral crime while at the same time using ot for patriotic reasons.


I understand because our conversation has led me to read more about Canada's moral decline.

Canada's decline has been the subject of many research and peer-reviewed articles (I was surprised, actually).

Cana is vonsidered an "international anomaly" because of the nature of its "left-leaning" liberalism.

Scholars link this in part to its creation, but more so to to the 1960's as Canada searched for identity.

Bottom line is today Canada is more left-liberal than European nations. It is not Canada following the EU in decline but Canada surpassing the EU via a diffetent route.


This is why you view the illegal invasion of foreign nations, once acvomplished, as legitimate and permanent. It is why yhe lives of the Venezuelan people do not matter to you (and most Canadians). They do not matter to you because they are not in your sphere.

You do not care about Canadian lives lost due to narco-terrorism because, as a Canadian, you live in a culture that foes not value human life.

You may be a right-leaning liberal, but that is only within the context of left-liberalism. You are on the more moderate side of immorality.

@Jon you do assume a great deal about me. I actually have very conservative values one of which is the rule of law. That seems to be something that you conveniently ignore.

What I have been saying is that the US did not have the right to enter that nation and kidnap it's leader. You have been trying to justify that action but all you have done is show how low the US has stooped.

The facts about Maduro's leadership is not the question. The question is whether the US had the right to invade or not. And no matter what you say about them shipping drugs or how he treated his people it is just a deflection from the real problem that the US in it's arrogance has brought about.

How can the US say to any other nation that they cannot invade any nation they want. The US has lost any possibility of taking a moral stand.
Trum* has brought the US to the same level as any other third rate rogue nation.

 

[Silverhair]

No, I am saying nations should not allow the UN to prevent it from acting morally - especially when the UN law is just words bearing no enforcement capability or consequences.

All sovereign nations are rogue. But "rogue nation" is a term that refers to threatening world peace.

Here your liberalism shows. You say we should allow a terrorist to oppress and murder the Venezuelan people, kill US and Canadian citizens, because it results in peace.

I say that is immoral.

Actually a "rogue nation" is a nation or state that defies international treaties, laws, etc.. And for examples of this we have to look no further than Russia that invaded Ukraine and the USA the invaded Iran and Venezuela.

You say "rogue nation" is a term that refers to threatening world peace. And again we have to look no further than Russia and the USA.

So what we see is that as much as you would like to defend the US you continue to prove just what I have been saying.

Care to show me where I said "we should allow a terrorist to oppress and murder the Venezuelan people, kill US and Canadian citizens, because it results in peace." or anything that is remotely like that. You keep accusing me of saying things I have not nor would say.

What is immoral is that you support an administration that thinks it does not have to abide by international treaties, laws.

 

[Silverhair]

I have a friend that was on the execution list. He had to sneak out of the country.Once hereIt cost him several thousand dollarsTo get his mother and dad out of that country. International Enforcement of drug laws does not constitute and Invasion.

Odd you say Maduro was doing illegal things but want to justify Trum* doing illegal things. It seem you Americans have a weird since of right and wrong.

 

[Silverhair]

I need to add - while Canada may not be an ideal country in which to live, it is a wonderful country to visit.

Same with Germany. I lived there for years, in the community while stationed in Germany. I chose not to live on a military base. Great place to visit (one of my favorite places to visit). Not such a great place to live.


But this is because of my values and culture. Just as Canadians have been anti-republican democracy since its creation so also is our republican-democracy something we value.

I have to agree with you on one point re Canada. It is slipping down a dangerous slope. I listened to a video last night that shows just how much the Liberal party is in bed with your Democrats.