The Instigator
jawaher
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
VoiceOfTheVoiceless
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Whether or not should UN Charter include the concept "pre-emptive self-defence" as an acceptable jud

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 424 times Debate No: 55902
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

jawaher

Pro

I.After the 11 September 2001 attacks, the United States" Government argued that it had the right to fight a "war on terror". It asserted its right to engage in "pre-emptive self-defence" in order to neutralize the new threats posed by international terrorists. The United Nations Charter, as traditionally interpreted, does not permit such a form of self-defense because it could encourage countries to begin wars against their rivals. UN Charter Article 51 states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security." War on terror as a political rhetoric does not have a corresponding legal category in international law.

Whether or not should UN Charter include the concept "pre-emptive self-defence" as an acceptable judicial explanation of its Article 51?
VoiceOfTheVoiceless

Con

if I'm correct you wish to argue that the US (or any country) has the right to attack in 'pre-emptive self defence attacks'. the right to attack in pre-emptive strike is absurd and it is fatal as the US has been wrong about a lot of wars including the so called 'war on terror' as we have seen that there are no WMD's in Afghanistan or Iraq. pre-emptive strike in self defence doesn't justify war, and the murder of innocents of a mass scale as it doesn't meet the standard of self defence. I've considered what you have said about Article 51 but considering what you have said, doesn't Afghanistan and Iraq have the Article 51 right to create guerrilla insurgents and attack in self defence against western forces? as history has shown us that Afghanistan is a place where empires go to die, from the Alexander the Great, the British Empire to the Soviets. Just for the interest of logic, you can't have a war on terrorism because thats not an actual enemy, its an abstract. its like having a war on dandruff. that war will be endless and pointless. its idiotic. thats not a war, its a slogan. its a lie. its advertising, which is the only art form that has ever been invented in America. And they use it to sell soap, wars and presidential candidates in the same fashion.
Debate Round No. 1
jawaher

Pro

jawaher forfeited this round.
VoiceOfTheVoiceless

Con

VoiceOfTheVoiceless forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jawaher

Pro

jawaher forfeited this round.
VoiceOfTheVoiceless

Con

VoiceOfTheVoiceless forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
jawaher

Pro

jawaher forfeited this round.
VoiceOfTheVoiceless

Con

VoiceOfTheVoiceless forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
jawaher

Pro

jawaher forfeited this round.
VoiceOfTheVoiceless

Con

VoiceOfTheVoiceless forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by VoiceOfTheVoiceless 2 years ago
VoiceOfTheVoiceless
its alright my friend, but the debate is about pre-emptive strike for self defence which should not be allowed as what if a country is wrong about the war? its highly crucial that every other option is exhausted. like world war 2 where western forces tried to appease nazi germany and exhausted every other method which is why sadly war was the only option, don't you agree ? that there should be other means of avoiding conflict as far as it possibly can be?.
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
Actually unfortunately I just clicked on jawahers account and it has been closed. Unfortunate. I would have liked to see this debate would have unfolded :(
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
I can respect that. I can fully understand peoples scrutiny over the war in Iraq, in all honesty it's a prerty confusing subject with really no simple answer. Not so much the one in Afghanistan, we definitely needed to go there, but whatever. I still disagree with your opinion of the Iraq war but we are all entitled to our own opinions and I respect that. Good luck in your debate. Cheers ;)
Posted by VoiceOfTheVoiceless 2 years ago
VoiceOfTheVoiceless
the number of citizens that you have cited are only conservative figures of the amount of innocents involved in collateral damage, of course the numbers are going to be scrutinised. yes i know why the war on terror was declared, i admire your bravery for going there and i truly believe that there was some threat in Afghanistan however i am completely against the war in Iraq. an unjust war declared in the interest of foreign policy for resources.
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
1.2 million... 1.2 MILLION? First I'll have to ask where the hell you got that number, let me guess, the Lancet? Cause, you know, last time I was THERE it was around 140,000 give or take a few thousand and about 60-70% of those killed were killed by jihadist forces NOT US forces or it's allies. I mean if your including all the Iraqis that have died for any reason in the past 3 decades you'd be more in the ball park. Especially seeing how saddam would be responsible for, well basically all of them.

As for WMDs. You obviously didn't get what my last comment said. Let me paint you a pretty picture. We were never, NEVER, looking for WMDs in Afghanistan! Was not even a consideration involved in the war. As for Iraq. That's a matter of debate. Did we find the war heads? No. We did find the plans, equipment, specialist, locations ect to build said devices. We found chemical weapons. We found scud missiles. We have suspect reason to believe that weapons of some sort were snuggled into Syria prior to the invasion. Aside from that we DO know that UN regulations and laws, and sanctions that were MANDATORY were not followed and that saddam continually broke dozens of orders mandated after he lost the first gulf war.
Posted by VoiceOfTheVoiceless 2 years ago
VoiceOfTheVoiceless
the UN itself recognises that 1.2 million innocent Iraqi's have been killed and that the US labels the deaths of innocents as 'collateral damage'. and have WMD's been found in Iraq or Afghanistan? No. guess that means you are a liberal/socialist...
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
Oh Really now???
"The murder of innocents of a massive scale"

"There were no WMDS in Afghanistan or Iraq". Take the Iraq part out of there and this becomes either a gross misunderstanding of the afghan war or an enormous grope for some sort of discreditization because you have none.

"its a lie. its advertising, which is the only art form that has ever been invented in America. And they use it to sell soap, wars and presidential candidates in the same fashion.
Report"

If these things aren't blatant bias then I am a Liberal/Socialist.
Posted by VoiceOfTheVoiceless 2 years ago
VoiceOfTheVoiceless
@aramer1919 my argument is not Partisan, if you can't accept the truth of my statements then read a history book and brush up on your logic.
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
Wow. The bias coming from Con is, lol, really cute. Based off of the first round arguments I'm going to make a guess and say, Pro wins by a landslide.
No votes have been placed for this debate.