Post by *skriptisCare to explain?
I will admit, I mixed Iraq and Bush with the overthrow of Libyan government and execution of Gaddafi done Obama and Hillary. Tha was the instance of waging a war purely from presidential office which is supposed to be illegal per your rules.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/24/barack-obama-libya-us-house-of-representatives
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-administration-libya-action-does-not-require-congressional-approval/2011/06/15/AGLttOWH_story.html
However bmoore did not win this argument even once he reminded us Congress approved "using force against Iraq".
So while it may have not violated US rules, in broader sense it was still illegal, violating international order.
Yes. Our leadership ran the risk of some form of sanctions, yep.
Post by *skriptisUN had to approve it to in order to be legal.
If one accepts that the authority of the UN is paramount, yes, you are
right. And indeed the US often pays lip service to bodies like the UN
and the courts of international law, but like any major power they:
a) do whatever they want, whenever they want to;
b) are often hypocritical.
We all know this, don't we?
This is an instance where it's not really likely that my ass will get
burned, and the US public has no realistic control over president's
actions. So yep, I wish he hadn't done it, it does not bother me in a
moral sense, only a pragmatic sense.
You know by now that it's pointless to use morality as a point of
reference when discussing issues, right? It could be raised as a sort of
traditional standard of acceptability, in historic terms, but at the
level of nations might makes right...
...or that's the way to bet.
Post by *skriptisSo it's not dog shit, it's horse shit. Big difference.
So that too, was this bending you talk about.
If anything, bending is what constantly happens. That's a true constant.
And when it threatens your interests, you can argue against it using the
notion of a binding bilateral understanding, such that if the opposing
party wants to change it, they have to offer recompense or lose face (if
this matters to them).
It's *why* the US government gave compensation--reservations, special
rights/rules, etc.--to American Injuns after the US gov had negotiated
treaties, signed them, then broke them (bent the rules). They could just
as easily have wiped them out, genocide-style, but did not, feeling
constrained, just a little bit, by the agreements they signed.
This is a *major* point: if there is no governing
rule/agreement/contract in place, either party is free to do anything,
at all, without even any consideration to the other party.
It's why people establish rules systems.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Doncha know,
That it's a shame and a pity
You were raised
Up in the city
And you never learned nothin'
'bout country ways."
--Not So Sweet Martha Lorraine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~