Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    Who the **** are you? And please re-structure your sentence so it makes a little bit of sense, please. If you are using the internet slang term "troll", then you are using it wrong.
    You have not contributed a single thought to the subject in 2 out of 2 posts on this tread. You have posted how many posts ? – it is reasonable to conclude that in 1,748 posts you have not contributed a single thought to any subject. You live your life without any thought and you are not alone, you have a company here, how many thanks do you have?

    Carry on – you will be thanked.

  2. #12
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    You have not contributed a single thought to the subject in 2 out of 2 posts on this tread. You have posted how many posts ? – it is reasonable to conclude that in 1,748 posts you have not contributed a single thought to any subject. You live your life without any thought and you are not alone, you have a company here, how many thanks do you have?

    Carry on – you will be thanked.
    NO

    3 out of 3

    you sir are wrong.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    How was the invasion of Japan by the USSR "legal" when the two had a neutrality pact dating to 1941 and Japan didn't commit any acts of war against the USSR? The USSR violated article two of the pact. The USSR had a neutrality pact with Japan and Japan had not violated it. The violation of such was a violation of international law. .
    1. The USSR signed under neutrality.
    2. Japan didn't commit any acts of war against the USSR.
    3. The USSR invaded Japan.
    4. Thus the invasion is illegal.

    Q: Find the flaws in the logic.



    5. I don’t know your purpose. I asked you, but you are not quoting the law yet. I don’t know what could be your goal here. There are such things as common sense and basic logic. You are trying to impose that international law is denying them. If it is it is defying itself.

    Since you have found the source, it clearly explains that The USSR did not violate the law, and moreover it did not violate Article 2. You certainly read the source – didn’t you? If you did not, you were only cherry picking lines that could fit to your absurd points. If you did, you then decided to go into an intentional deception. In either case you are a disappointment.

    The allied powers, including the USSR generally established the International laws. There are well known historical facts. Neither the US nor GB, nor any of the allies accused the USSR of violation of laws when it invaded Japan, no they could think about a slight possibility that such an idea could come to somebody’s mind. How does your mind work? Who are you and what is the purpose of your existence?


    From your own source:
    6. “The neutrality pact between the Soviet Union and Japan was concluded on April 13, 1941, that is, before the attack of Germany on the USSR and before the outbreak of war between Japan on the one hand and England and the United States on the other. Since that time the situation has been basically altered. Germany has attacked the USSR, and Japan, ally of Germany, is aiding the latter in its war against the USSR. Furthermore Japan is waging a war with the USA and England, which are allies of the Soviet Union.
    In these circumstances the neutrality pact between Japan and the USSR has lost its sense, and the prolongation of that pact has become impossible.’’

    No law, no treaty has in its goal achievement of non-sense and/or impossibility of compliance.

    The flaw is : Germany has attacked the USSR, and Japan, ally of Germany, is aiding the latter in its war against the USSR, thus 2. is a false premise.

    Answer: 1. 2 . 3. are all fallacies of composition. It is all flawed
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Not a treaty but a wartime committment that was never formalized in the form of a treaty .
    7. Again you are making up a non-sense. What is ‘’the form of a treaty’’? How is it different from a wartime commitment? ¼ of my contracts are not signed, and ¼ of that ¼ are not even on paper.
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Furthermore, you may occupy land in belligerant occupation PENDING the final status being determined in a treaty, but failing a treaty, annexation is illegal. .
    Again, what law are you referring to, making up the non-sense? The land in the question may be said to be pending the final status. What treaty did ever the USSR enter in and fail?
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Not illegal because it is a treaty that was signed by Japan as well as a large number of allied powers. However, there is nothing about annexation of territory. Japan surrendered claims to various territories, but sovereignty over them was not assigned to any nation, a critical element in accordance with international law to effect the state to state transfer. .
    Again you are making things up, you are claiming that there are territories formerly claimed by Japan that now have no sovereignty. What are those territories? What does mean ‘’claims’’ to various territories?

    Were the territories in the question – Japan or they were claimed by Japan? Did the USSR invade Japan or territories claimed by Japan? You are fond of verbal fallacies.

    “ several Japanese islands were ceded by the treaty to the United States” – is not annexation? Can you understand that there is some common sense that shouldn’t be broken? Whatever are the semantics they may constitute a speech, but they do not change the reality behind the words.

    ‘’The document officially renounces Japan's treaty rights derived from the Boxer Protocol of 1901 and its rights to Korea, Formosa (Taiwan), Hong Kong (a British colony), the Kuril Islands, the Pescadores, the Spratly Islands, Antarctica and Sakhalin Island.’’

    If to apply your logic - the treaty of the Boxer protocol is violated…. Weren’t the “claims” of Japan legal according to the Boxer Protocol., if to apply your logic?

    Did not the US hold islands in its posession.? Yes, it did. Would it give them back to Japan, if Japan and the USSR signed act of military partnership directed against the US? No. Why then the USSR should act any different?
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    There is still no provision for USSR annexation. .
    Did I say a word about annexation in the quote?

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Irrelevant. .
    Now you are in the state of denial. If you say THIS is irrelevant to the subject, then I don’t know what could be relevant, - I guess, only your absurd fantasies?
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    You can see the USSR is actuall acknowledging the need for a specific transfer in the treaty to effectuate a formal transfer of sovereignty according to this argument. The Kuriles (though Japan disputes the islands included in the chain) and southern Sakhalin were indeed "de-claimed" by Japan, but no transfer of sovereignty exists in the treaty. The USSR annexation had no legal basis. .
    You just said ”irrelevant”, but you are addressing it? What really do you want from me? What is your purpose?
    Where do you see that The USSR is ‘’actual acknowledging the need for a specific transfer in the treaty to effectuate a formal transfer of sovereignty’’ when you are reading the list of Soviet reasons why the treaty is in violation of agreements and purposes previously established? And how does it make the annexation not to have legal basis, when the annexation had happened 6 years before the treaty, and never was denounced? Who are you and what is the purpose of your existence?
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Tiaoyutai was a part of Taipei prefecture according to a judicial decision in Tokyo in the 1930s. However, it is quite likely the Allied negotiators and the US officials charged with implementing the peace accord were unaware of this. .
    I as well may go into history of the territories, down to the Boxer protocol, but this is really irrelevant and meaningless, as well as your accusation that they were “unaware”.
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    The USSR NOT signing the treaty was NOT illegal, but the USSR also can't derive any benefits from that treaty. .
    Thanks, - you understand – it is not illegal.
    Treaty is a contract - in a written or a verbal or any other forms – between two or multiple sides, any entity which does not enter in the contract does not have obligation to follow it, and if it does not follow it, it does mean it violates of a law – national or international. It is Common sense and basic logic.
    What benefits did the USSR derive from that treaty? You are fond of verbal fallacies. What actions after 1951 did it ever take on the grounds of the treaty it was not a part of?

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    No, not illegal. So? It was illegal to annex the territory without the treaty providing a mechanism for transfer of sovereignty. .
    Can you prove such a non-sense that absence of a mechanism for transfer of sovereignty in a treaty makes possession of a legally acquired territory illegal?

    The annexation happened 6 years before treaty. It was legal – agreed upon the sides - at that time. Absence of a mechanism for transfer of sovereignty in the treaty may be a failure of the treaty, but it does not make the annexation illegal.
    Last edited by justone; 01-27-09 at 09:39 PM.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Wars are to gain territory, and transfer of such territory is formalized by a peace treaty. .
    Again, you are making up a rule. Not formalizing by a peace treaty is not illegal. It was not illegal for 6 years until 1951, it was not illegal for 21 more years, it is not illegal today, it is never illegal. Sometimes it may be - like both Russia and Japan put it – “unnatural”, or pending, or troubling, ---- AFTER A CERTAIN TIME AND UNDER A CERTAIN AND NEW Circumstances -----but it is not illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    The USSR invasion of Japanese territory was a violation of its treaty with Japan and thus a violation of international law. .
    You repeat your falsification. See 5. and 6.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Furthermore, as there was no treaty formalizing a change in sovereignty, the technical legal status would be belligerant occupation, not dissimilar to that of Israel in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. .

    It is not furthermore since the above is false, but it may be similar.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    The ISraeli annexation of those territories DOES have a parallel save for the fact that Israel's war was legal while the USSR invasion was not. .
    You repeat your falsification. See 5. and 6
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    No, it is far from the same. .
    False as based on false premises.
    Besides –
    Germany started the war with the Allies in Europe.
    Arabs started war against Israel.
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    The USSR remained neutral until the last month of the war in the Pacific and invaded .
    Under request of the US and considering 6.
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    an already beaten Japan. .
    Japan was not beaten. Logic of semantics is not semantics of logic. Japan became beaten upon capitulating.
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    It is not legal to annex territories belonging to another state without a treaty. .
    Another repetition. Answered 3 times.
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Israel has NO right to annex Gaza nor does it have a right to annex the West Bank. .
    As the above is false, the conclusion is false, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Look through the history of modern territory transfers and you will find that they are accompanied by a clause formalizing those transfers in treaties. Even in the case of the US, all of its territorial expansion with the exception of Hawaii was effectuated through treaties. .
    The territories considered here are justone example out of many that you are using verbal fallacy – semantics again. In history annexation territories may happen decades and even centuries before any formalization. Again you repeat unknown, unquoted and non-sensual rule of yours. It is annoying. Japan was offered a peace treaty before the invasion by the USSR. It refused to enter it, - then according to you logic the territories taken by the US were supposed to be immediately given back to Japan, - and the US were holding them illegally – they had no formalization. Israel offered Arabs to enter a peace treaty. Arabs refused to enter it… the same story.
    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    If they don't sign the cluster bomb treaty, but it becomes regarded as customary international law, there are two possibilities:

    1. The non-signatories through their statements and actions accept the provisions of the treaty, thus falling under its provisions; OR

    2. The non-signatories from the outset signal their non-acceptance of the provision by their words and deeds and this do NOT fall under its provisions. .
    I cannot even figure out semantics of your verbal fallacy, - you have made a bunch of definitions and used them frivolously. It seems you agree with me in 2 by making up your own non-sensual law ‘’from the outset signal their non-acceptance’’, which just happens to agree with the international law. Logic of semantics is not semantics of logic, - non signing IS ‘’the outset signal of their non-acceptance‘’. Thus if they didn’t sign it their use cluster bomb is no violation of international laws.

    To make it a bit easier for you – there are supreme international laws, - you don’t have to sign them, but if you break them you become an international outlaw. As an example using certain types of cluster bombs to achieve certain goals can make a non-signatory an international outlaw. As an example – you have broken all laws of common sense and basic logic in your post, and thus you put yourself in the position of an outlaw.
    Last edited by justone; 01-27-09 at 09:43 PM.

  5. #15
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    1. The USSR signed under neutrality.
    2. Japan didn't commit any acts of war against the USSR.
    3. The USSR invaded Japan.
    4. Thus the invasion is illegal.

    Q: Find the flaws in the logic.
    Looks about right.

    5. I don’t know your purpose. I asked you, but you are not quoting the law yet. I don’t know what could be your goal here. There are such things as common sense and basic logic. You are trying to impose that international law is denying them. If it is it is defying itself.
    Before I begin to lecture you, I must ask if you are familiar with the concept of customary internationa law?

    Since you have found the source, it clearly explains that The USSR did not violate the law, and moreover it did not violate Article 2. You certainly read the source – didn’t you? If you did not, you were only cherry picking lines that could fit to your absurd points. If you did, you then decided to go into an intentional deception. In either case you are a disappointment.
    Sure it was a violation. Japan and the USSR signed a treaty of neutrality. Japan did nothing to violate that treaty. The USSR invaded. A clear treaty violation, especially as Article 2 INCLUDED the provision of allies becoming involved in the war. According to your theory, Japan could have invaded the USSR legally because the USSR was at war with Germany, but Japan didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by USSR-Japan Neutrality Treaty
    ARTICLE ONE

    Both Contracting Parties undertake to maintain peaceful and friendly relations between them and mutually respect the territorial integrity and inviolability of the other Contracting Party.

    ARTICLE TWO

    Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the duration of the conflict.
    The later Soviet denunciation of the agreement was unilateral and a violation of that pact.

    The allied powers, including the USSR generally established the International laws. There are well known historical facts. Neither the US nor GB, nor any of the allies accused the USSR of violation of laws when it invaded Japan, no they could think about a slight possibility that such an idea could come to somebody’s mind. How does your mind work? Who are you and what is the purpose of your existence?
    International law existed PRIOR to the end of WWII and the customary law of state to state transfer of territory requiring a treaty pre-dated WWII.

    6. “The neutrality pact between the Soviet Union and Japan was concluded on April 13, 1941, that is, before the attack of Germany on the USSR and before the outbreak of war between Japan on the one hand and England and the United States on the other. Since that time the situation has been basically altered. Germany has attacked the USSR, and Japan, ally of Germany, is aiding the latter in its war against the USSR. Furthermore Japan is waging a war with the USA and England, which are allies of the Soviet Union.
    In these circumstances the neutrality pact between Japan and the USSR has lost its sense, and the prolongation of that pact has become impossible.’’
    This is from the Denunciation issued by the USSR. It lacks legal basis.

    No law, no treaty has in its goal achievement of non-sense and/or impossibility of compliance.
    So, it is possible to comply with Kyoto?

    The flaw is : Germany has attacked the USSR, and Japan, ally of Germany, is aiding the latter in its war against the USSR, thus 2. is a false premise.
    How was Japan aiding Germany in its war against the USSR? Japan had its hands tied with China, the USA, and other allies in the Pacific.

    Answer: 1. 2 . 3. are all fallacies of composition. It is all flawed
    On what basis?

    7. Again you are making up a non-sense. What is ‘’the form of a treaty’’? How is it different from a wartime commitment? ¼ of my contracts are not signed, and ¼ of that ¼ are not even on paper.
    Prior to 1969, all treaties were expected to be signed by competant authorities representing the negotiating nations, then be ratified by whatever means is provided in the respective countries' governmental systems, then instruments of ratification deposited as stipulated in the treaty. Your agreements/contracts are not treaties.

    Again, what law are you referring to, making up the non-sense? The land in the question may be said to be pending the final status. What treaty did ever the USSR enter in and fail?
    The 1941 Treaty of Neutrality with Japan. I am not making up non-sense.

    Again you are making things up, you are claiming that there are territories formerly claimed by Japan that now have no sovereignty. What are those territories? What does mean ‘’claims’’ to various territories?
    Because of how the Peace Treaty of San Francisco was drawn up, there were several territories left with undetermined status following its ratification (including the island where I currently life). That still doesn't give the USSR legal carte blanche to annex the territories.

    Were the territories in the question – Japan or they were claimed by Japan? Did the USSR invade Japan or territories claimed by Japan? You are fond of verbal fallacies.
    They invaded Japanese occupied territories.

    “ several Japanese islands were ceded by the treaty to the United States” – is not annexation? Can you understand that there is some common sense that shouldn’t be broken? Whatever are the semantics they may constitute a speech, but they do not change the reality behind the words.
    What islands were ceded to the United States.

    ‘’The document officially renounces Japan's treaty rights derived from the Boxer Protocol of 1901 and its rights to Korea, Formosa (Taiwan), Hong Kong (a British colony), the Kuril Islands, the Pescadores, the Spratly Islands, Antarctica and Sakhalin Island.’’
    Does not result in transfer of sovereignty.

    If to apply your logic - the treaty of the Boxer protocol is violated…. Weren’t the “claims” of Japan legal according to the Boxer Protocol., if to apply your logic?
    What is your point?

    Did not the US hold islands in its posession.? Yes, it did. Would it give them back to Japan, if Japan and the USSR signed act of military partnership directed against the US? No. Why then the USSR should act any different?
    What islands?

    Did I say a word about annexation in the quote?
    Then how did the USSe acquire Karafuto and Chishima? Accretion?

    Now you are in the state of denial. If you say THIS is irrelevant to the subject, then I don’t know what could be relevant, - I guess, only your absurd fantasies?
    You obviously have a VERY limited understanding of basic concepts of international law.

    Where do you see that The USSR is ‘’actual acknowledging the need for a specific transfer in the treaty to effectuate a formal transfer of sovereignty’’ when you are reading the list of Soviet reasons why the treaty is in violation of agreements and purposes previously established? And how does it make the annexation not to have legal basis, when the annexation had happened 6 years before the treaty, and never was denounced? Who are you and what is the purpose of your existence?
    China makes the same claim. It doesn't change the fact that wartime commitments don't always become included in the post-war treaties. Potsdam et. al. were important, but not treaties.

    I as well may go into history of the territories, down to the Boxer protocol, but this is really irrelevant and meaningless, as well as your accusation that they were “unaware”.
    I am quite familiar with this history. However, there is no legal means for transfer of the territories to Russia.

    Thanks, - you understand – it is not illegal.
    Treaty is a contract - in a written or a verbal or any other forms – between two or multiple sides, any entity which does not enter in the contract does not have obligation to follow it, and if it does not follow it, it does mean it violates of a law – national or international. It is Common sense and basic logic.
    Treaty in verbal form? You are really reaching. Treaties are written, signed, then ratified before instruments of ratification are deposited in accordance with the terms of the treaty.

    What benefits did the USSR derive from that treaty? You are fond of verbal fallacies. What actions after 1951 did it ever take on the grounds of the treaty it was not a part of?
    The USSR was not even a party to the treaty.

    Can you prove such a non-sense that absence of a mechanism for transfer of sovereignty in a treaty makes possession of a legally acquired territory illegal?
    Customary state practice, a VERY important source of international law - commonly regarded as importnat (or nearly so) as treaty law and the decisions of international tribunals.

    The annexation happened 6 years before treaty. It was legal – agreed upon the sides - at that time. Absence of a mechanism for transfer of sovereignty in the treaty may be a failure of the treaty, but it does not make the annexation illegal.
    The annexation was illegal. There is no treaty provision for sovereignty to pas from Japan to the USSR. You may not understand the concept of customary international law, but it is valid and very important.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  6. #16
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Again, you are making up a rule. Not formalizing by a peace treaty is not illegal. It was not illegal for 6 years until 1951, it was not illegal for 21 more years, it is not illegal today, it is never illegal. Sometimes it may be - like both Russia and Japan put it – “unnatural”, or pending, or troubling, ---- AFTER A CERTAIN TIME AND UNDER A CERTAIN AND NEW Circumstances -----but it is not illegal.
    Not formalizing a peace treaty is NOT illegal, however annexing a territory from another state in the absense of such a treaty IS illegal.

    You repeat your falsification. See 5. and 6.
    You claim falsification where none exists.

    False as based on false premises.
    Besides –
    Germany started the war with the Allies in Europe.
    Arabs started war against Israel
    .

    But Japan did NOT start a war with the USSR, the USSR started it. In accordance with article two of the aforementioned treaty, the USSR had an obligation to maintain its neutrality.

    Under request of the US and considering 6.
    Still a violation of the 1941 treaty.

    Japan was not beaten. Logic of semantics is not semantics of logic. Japan became beaten upon capitulating.
    So? Doesn't change the fact that the USSRs invasion was a violation of its treaty commitments and the following annexation of territory was illegal.

    Another repetition. Answered 3 times.
    Not answered adequately.

    As the above is false, the conclusion is false, too.
    What is false?

    The territories considered here are justone example out of many that you are using verbal fallacy – semantics again. In history annexation territories may happen decades and even centuries before any formalization. Again you repeat unknown, unquoted and non-sensual rule of yours. It is annoying. Japan was offered a peace treaty before the invasion by the USSR. It refused to enter it, - then according to you logic the territories taken by the US were supposed to be immediately given back to Japan, - and the US were holding them illegally – they had no formalization. Israel offered Arabs to enter a peace treaty. Arabs refused to enter it… the same story.
    In modern international law, for a territory to be transferred from one state to another, a treaty must effectuate the treaty. This is customary international law. I am not making it up. It is reality, confirmed by state practice.

    What territories would you say the US is currently holding illegally based on this logic?

    The Egyptians HAVE entered into a peace treaty with Israel. No cession of Gaza to Israel was effectuated by the treaty.

    I cannot even figure out semantics of your verbal fallacy, - you have made a bunch of definitions and used them frivolously. It seems you agree with me in 2 by making up your own non-sensual law ‘’from the outset signal their non-acceptance’’, which just happens to agree with the international law. Logic of semantics is not semantics of logic, - non signing IS ‘’the outset signal of their non-acceptance‘’. Thus if they didn’t sign it their use cluster bomb is no violation of international laws.
    I think I said that last sentence. You are obviously not familiar with the use of customary international law, and its continuing evolution.

    To make it a bit easier for you – there are supreme international laws, - you don’t have to sign them, but if you break them you become an international outlaw. As an example using certain types of cluster bombs to achieve certain goals can make a non-signatory an international outlaw. As an example – you have broken all laws of common sense and basic logic in your post, and thus you put yourself in the position of an outlaw.
    Not if they signified from the outset that they to not accept its provisions. Other states may penalize you for it, but it doesn't make you an international outlaw. For example, Israel did not accept the nuclear NPT from the outset. Though its provisions have become generally accepted as customary international law, since Israel opposed their provisions from the outset, it is not bound by them. Difficult concept for the novice to understand, I suppose, but this is a reality of international law.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    ARTICLE TWO
    Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the duration of the conflict.


    Signed :

    Contracting power R.
    Contracting power J.



    The third party G attacks Contracting power R.
    Contracting power J enters/ exists as a military ally of the third party G and Contracting power J aids the third party G in destroying Contracting power R.

    Contracting power R has all legal right to destroy both the 3 rd party G and Contracting power J.


    You cannot lecture me on customary international law or anything else, because you cannot be an expert in customary international law or anything else due to total absence of common sense and basic logic.

    You have made another post where

    1. You have omitted my premises
    2. Based your post ( as the previous one ) on total absence of common sense and basic logic, - the same claim that Contracting power R broke law in the consideration above.

  8. #18
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    ARTICLE TWO
    Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the duration of the conflict.


    Signed :

    Contracting power R.
    Contracting power J.


    The third party G attacks Contracting power R.
    Contracting power J enters/ exists as a military ally of the third party G and Contracting power J aids the third party G in destroying Contracting power R.

    Contracting power R has all legal right to destroy both the 3 rd party G and Contracting power J.
    Article two of the treaty is quite clear. It says if one of the two contracting powers becomes involved in a conflict, the other must maintain neutrality. What part of this do you not understand.

    Furthermore, as the conflict between the USSR and Germany was COMPLETED by the time the USSR joined the war on Japan, your point, even if it had merit, is completely irrelevant and moot.

    You cannot lecture me on customary international law or anything else, because you cannot be an expert in customary international law or anything else due to total absence of common sense and basic logic.
    Are you even aware of customary international law? Obviously not. You can't even read the language of treaties very clearly.

    2. Based your post ( as the previous one ) on total absence of common sense and basic logic, - the same claim that Contracting power R broke law in the consideration above.
    The violation of the treaty by the USSR is SO OBVIOUS that only an unapologetic apologist for USSR/Russia could be blind to it.
    Last edited by ludahai; 01-27-09 at 11:47 PM.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  9. #19
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    The subject may be of no interest to you.
    Maybe you should re-read his post. It would appear that he is interested, thus the "keep us updated" remark.
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

  10. #20
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Justone:

    Two questions:

    1. Are you familiar with the concept of custom as a source of international law?

    2. Did you know that the primary source of customary international law is "state practice"?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •