• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

You have completely ignored the question about customary international law. Do you know what it is? Do you acknowledge its existance? Do you know what is a source of customary international law?
 
You have not make any new statements regarding the subject but just have ignored my arguments and exactly repeated statements of your previous post.

I have not ignored your arguments. I have either refuted them or simply noted that they are completely non-sensical.

They all were answered and some of them more than once. It is clear that you cannot be reasoned. I don’t even know if should I repeat or accent for others who visit this tread.

:rofl Any comments about customary international law?

Germany attacked the USSR when Japan has a treaty with Germany where Japan was taking obligations to provide military, economic and political aid to Germany - not excluding but rather including Germany’s military actions in Europe. Since Japan didn’t withdraw from the treaty with Germany when Germany undertook military action against the USSR (within conditions of the treaty beween germany and Japan) its treaty with the USSR lost any legal validity, lost any sense.

Apparently the positive language in article two of the treaty is beyond you. Japan remained neutral in the war. The USSR signed that treaty with Japan fully knowing that Hitler would probably stab them in the back or that they would do it first. You have to look at the intent of the USSR in signing the treaty. It was to prevent them from getting embroiled in a two front war - one that would likely have led to the fall of EUropean Russia. It was successful. The USSR got want they wanted. Then, after victory was achieved, they unilateraly abrogated said treaty. There was no more Germany enemy. Your whole premise is moot because the war was over in the west and all but over in the Pacific.

If Kyoto comes to your mind as an example of a treaty which has non-sense as its goal and impossibility to comply with it, I can only congratulate you. It seems like you are quite a discoverer of things nobody can think about.

How many countries who have ratified Kyoto are actually in compliance?

The US - during all time of its confrontation with the Empire of evil never thought about accusing it in breaking the international law by withdrawing from treaty of Tripoli, I mean from treaty with Japan.

Are you referring to the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797? What withdrawal are you talking about?

I can imagine that now professors of law do it today - I don’t know how widely liberal lunatics are spread in Universities today, but the US has never proposed such a bogus idea on international stage. May be Obama’s administration will push this accusation on Russia, - who knows, all kind of things may be expected, but I still think it will take time before any common sense will be exterminated by your type in the US.

What bogus idea? Your monoogue is very vague on what points are being addressed when.

All you have added is desertion to statements “Your logic is that of the dictators in Moscow.’’ such a Russia/USSR apologist’’, - which is pathetic, and again it proves that you are not capable of reasoning.

Considering the lack of reasoning and complete ignornace of the concept of customary international law you have thus far shown, I am not going to lose any sleep over such a comment.

I am rather the US history apologist as the US have never accused the USSR in what you are accusing.

Accusing of what? Please do a better job of quoting what you are answering. It makes the flow of debate easier to deal with.

I am very sympathetic to Russia for a number of reasons, but it does not have anything to do to my attitude to the USSR.

Yet, you are defending their violation of the Neutrality Pact AND defending their illegal annexation of Karafuto and Chishima.

Your spreading the term the USSR on only the Russian Federation when you look at all other former members of the USSR, - like they have nothing to do to the USSR, - proves that you are not only ignorant and unreasonable, but also most likely a pathetic Russophobe. When people who suffer from lack of reason, ignorance and phobia express the named symptoms talking about Russia they make me even more sympathetic to Russia.

I am refering to RUssia in this case because Russia is the sole successor state of the USSR in the Far East and in international law, Russia is regarded as the successor state to the USSR.

Russia rulez. Look into the KGB eyes:

After dealing with a China apologist for two years, now I have a Russia apologist to deal with. I hope this will be just as much fun.
 
You have the same as usual – repeated your statements, never addressed my arguments and deserted to pathetic addresses like Russia apologist”.


I said:

justone said:
What does mean to be “ familiar with the concept of custom as a source of international law “ ? What does mean to be aware of customary international law?
The self authorized claim that you are aware of customary international law cannot serve as grounds that you are right when your reasoning is flawed; such a claim is a logical fallacy. You can be a master international lawyer, it does not make any difference. The repeated notion - that I may not be unfamiliar, and you are familiar - you use instead of ever addressing my arguments is childish, to say the least.

I never had my Qs answered and my points addressed.

Let me put in a simpler way, - it is like you would be claiming that the earth is flat, and when I would be refuting your claim and you would ask what degree in geography do I have. You are missing the point.



You have to look at the intent of the USSR in signing the treaty. It was to prevent them from getting embroiled in a two front war - one that would likely have led to the fall of EUropean Russia. It was successful. The USSR got want they wanted. .


You have to prove the intent of the USSR as well you have to address and prove the intent of Japan. As well you have to try to avoid verbal fallacies such as ‘’EUropean Russia’’- which were Ukraine, Moldova and the 3 Baltic republics.

The USSR signed the treaty and it never intended to comply with it. Japan signed the treaty with a hope that the USSR would comply with it. The 2 evil States were playing games. Japan just got beaten severely by the USSR ( at the first application of the Soviet concept of blitzkrieg.) The USSR was preparing to occupy Europe. Japan was preparing to attack Pearl Harbor. The treaty was equally beneficial for the both states. The both states were concentrating on their main goals. It is some explanation of your lies for the visitors. Your lies yet are not addressing the points made.





I am refering to RUssia in this case because Russia is the sole successor state of the USSR in the Far East and in international law, Russia is regarded as the successor state to the USSR. .


It is another verbal fallacy. Russia accepted legal and financial obligations of the USSR, when other Republics of the USSR failed. It does not mean that Russia is the
‘’ successor state to the USSR’’ in its political stance and goals. In its political stance and goals has demonstrated to be a lot more away from the political stance and goals of the USSR than any other Republic of the USSR. It has been demonstrating that it follows reasons, the concept which is totally unfamiliar to you.

After dealing with a China apologist for two years, now I have a Russia apologist to deal with. I hope this will be just as much fun.

This is the only way of the posters like you – you have a lot of time on hand and you don’t care what you type, as long as you keep on typing to have the last word. Your fun is in your sickness.
 
You obviously don't get the questions. I will make them simpler.

1. Do you know what customary international law is?
2. Do you know what is a valid source of international customary law?
 
You have the same as usual – repeated your statements, never addressed my arguments and deserted to pathetic addresses like Russia apologist”.

I have addressed your arguments. You have shown NO understanding whatsoever regarding the principle of customary international law.

Let me put in a simpler way, - it is like you would be claiming that the earth is flat, and when I would be refuting your claim and you would ask what degree in geography do I have. You are missing the point.

I have two degrees in political science and have significant coursework and independent study in the field of international law, something you have shown an alarming LACK of understanding about to this point in the discussion.

You have to prove the intent of the USSR as well you have to address and prove the intent of Japan. As well you have to try to avoid verbal fallacies such as ‘’EUropean Russia’’- which were Ukraine, Moldova and the 3 Baltic republics.

Russia was the dominant power in the USSR, and the mistake was borne of the fact that hte USSR doesn't exist anymore and my thoughts are rather fluid. Of course, such nit picking is indicative of someone who has no argument.

The USSR signed the treaty and it never intended to comply with it. Japan signed the treaty with a hope that the USSR would comply with it. The 2 evil States were playing games. Japan just got beaten severely by the USSR ( at the first application of the Soviet concept of blitzkrieg.)

The USSR signed and ratified the treaty. According to international law, they are legally bound to uphold that. As for Japan getting severly beaten by the USSR, that was because they had already been beaten by the US and China.

The USSR was preparing to occupy Europe. Japan was preparing to attack Pearl Harbor. The treaty was equally beneficial for the both states. The both states were concentrating on their main goals. It is some explanation of your lies for the visitors. Your lies yet are not addressing the points made.

I haven't lied about a thing. Both benefited. Nothing I have said contradicts this point. However, Japan maintained its responsibilities under the treaty, the USSR did not.

You still have done nothing to refute the illegality of the annexation of Karafuto and Chishima by the USSR.







It is another verbal fallacy. Russia accepted legal and financial obligations of the USSR, when other Republics of the USSR failed. It does not mean that Russia is the
‘’ successor state to the USSR’’ in its political stance and goals. In its political stance and goals has demonstrated to be a lot more away from the political stance and goals of the USSR than any other Republic of the USSR. It has been demonstrating that it follows reasons, the concept which is totally unfamiliar to you.



This is the only way of the posters like you – you have a lot of time on hand and you don’t care what you type, as long as you keep on typing to have the last word. Your fun is in your sickness.[/QUOTE]
 
It is another verbal fallacy. Russia accepted legal and financial obligations of the USSR, when other Republics of the USSR failed. It does not mean that Russia is the
‘’ successor state to the USSR’’ in its political stance and goals. In its political stance and goals has demonstrated to be a lot more away from the political stance and goals of the USSR than any other Republic of the USSR. It has been demonstrating that it follows reasons, the concept which is totally unfamiliar to you.



This is the only way of the posters like you – you have a lot of time on hand and you don’t care what you type, as long as you keep on typing to have the last word. Your fun is in your sickness./QUOTE]
These are my words

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...n-pm-aso-sakhalin-talks-3.html#post1057904496

Putting them in in your post like they are yours is an absurd.

You have shown NO understanding whatsoever regarding the principle of customary international law.



I have two degrees in political science and have significant coursework and independent study in the field of international law, something you have shown an alarming LACK of understanding about to this point in the discussion.

I have two degrees in political science and have significant coursework and independent study in the field of international law, something you have shown an alarming LACK of understanding about to this point in the discussion.


So, you have not received any formal education, you have 2 degrees in propaganda, agitation, verbal fallacies and deception and have tried to get some self education in the field of international law. As I have said, even if you had 2 degrees in the field the field of international law it wouldn’t change the fact that on DP you cannot maintain laws of common sense and basic logic. Your pathetic need to demonstrate degrees instead of demonstrating basic logic is another proof of your inabilities.


Russia was the dominant power in the USSR, and the mistake was borne of the fact that hte USSR doesn't exist anymore and my thoughts are rather fluid. Of course, such nit picking is indicative of someone who has no argument.
 
Last edited:
Once again showing you don't even know about something as basic as customary international law. No wonder why you can't see that the behavior of the USSR in the last month of World War II and its immediate aftermath was a violation of international law.

Nice to see a Russian :spin:master on here though. It provides quite a lot of entertainment in the departure of the Sino :spin:master.
 
Have you learned this tact from jfuh when he was young and completly helpless?
 
Once again, do you know what customary international law is?

*note to mods: we need an icon for "dodge"*

1.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...n-pm-aso-sakhalin-talks-2.html#post1057901794

justone said:
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.


2. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...n-pm-aso-sakhalin-talks-3.html#post1057904496

justone said:
I never had my Qs answered and my points addressed.

Let me put in a simpler way, - it is like you would be claiming that the earth is flat, and when I would be refuting your claim and you would ask what degree in geography do I have. You are missing the point.


3. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...n-pm-aso-sakhalin-talks-3.html#post1057902616

justone said:
What does mean to be “ familiar with the concept of custom as a source of international law “ ? What does mean to be aware of customary international law?
The self authorized claim that you are aware of customary international law cannot serve as grounds that you are right when your reasoning is flawed; such a claim is a logical fallacy. You can be a master international lawyer, it does not make any difference. The repeated notion - that I may not be unfamiliar, and you are familiar - you use instead of ever addressing my arguments is childish, to say the least.

You cannot be familiar with any laws because you are denying the simple basis of all laws I have been pointing to:
‘’No law, no treaty has in its goals achievement of non-sense and/or impossibility of compliance.’’

Upon actions of Japan (which were listed) after signing the treaty, as well as upon the change is circumstances (which were listed) the treaty lost its sense, the goals of the treaty were forfeited.

You obviously are not familiar with any laws BECAUSE you have been completely ignoring and avoiding common sense and logic, the listed actions of Japan and the listed changes in circumstances.

4. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...n-pm-aso-sakhalin-talks-4.html#post1057906748

justone said:
As I have said, even if you had 2 degrees in the field the field of international law it wouldn’t change the fact that on DP you cannot maintain laws of common sense and basic logic. Your pathetic need to demonstrate degrees instead of demonstrating basic logic is another proof of your inabilities.

I am sorry but I cannot find another word, - you either are playing a retard or you are a retard. I answered this retarded question of yours with all possible politeness 4 times on 2 pages! I tried to make it simple, to chew and put it in your mouth. Are you so paralyzed that you cannot even swallow? How else can I answer, explain? Do it yourself. Whatever you like, make your choice:
1. I have no clue about CIL.
2. I have a degree in CIL.

Make your own choice, I will sign under any. And read the above and the rest of the debate, - neither of the choices makes a slightest difference,…. well… well... unless you are willing to keep on playing a retard..
 
Back
Top Bottom