Thanks, Thorhammer. So with "nothing can stop them either way", you are specifically referring to international treaties and agreements but not to other nations?

With the Iran example, let's say that Iran signs a treaty with the rest of the world to never pursue the acquisition of nuclear weapons, to be valid in any part of Iranian as well as international territory. Would you say that Iran had a sovereign right to break such a treaty without international repercussion?

For starters I do not believe that international treaties, in any way, trump the sovereign rights of a nation.

In the scenario you have given, where Iran backs out of a treaty, I think Iran has every right to back out if they feel it is in the best interests of their country to do so. However, in doing so, they run the risk of: 1.) Their word no longer being trusted by other nations. 2.) The possibility of certain nations feeling it is in their best interest for Iran not to get nukes. But, I do not think that is what you were asking. You are speaking in terms of legal repercussions, correct? In that case I would say no, since there was never anything legally saying they couldn't.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Nice post, kijana.

Of course, Watson doesn't want to have to ram anybody, but his threat has to be taken seriously. It's pretty plain that there won't be any attempts at whaling in his vicinity. If there were a hundred Watsons out there there wouldn't be any whaling.

Greenpeace terrorists get a taste of their own medicine...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvN0ACo5Lgc&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gin68...eature=related

What do you think of that?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Ya buys your ticket, ya takes your chances......ha ha ha , that was a hoot!

__________________
Mr. Obama, please release the UFO files!

Empty threats are such an effective tool............

__________________
Mr. Obama, please release the UFO files!

Chassisman;


Hey, Chassisman, get your head around this;

Well done, Watson. More like him required.

To be honest Matt - I feel that the writings of St Moon are comparable to the Bible ... subject to interpretation.

And how one interprets will depend on what one wants to find in his writing.

"A good Ramming will do" is probably as much a call for killing the crew as me saying "your president should be shot" is a call for an assassination attempt against Bush.

I no more want to see Bush shot than Moon wants to see people killed. But there are times when we say things because - well - dickheads behaving like dickheads sometimes affect you that way.

Yo Daisy. Blessed be your well and all that drinketh therefrom. Yay !

I'd be interested to know what 'ramming' would entail.

The only 'ramming' I know of WRT recent events in Japanese whaling was when the whaling ship (much bigger than a greenpeace ship) rammed a greenpeace boat.

Usually greenpeace come between the whale and the boat, preventing the whalers from - what I can only call murdering - the whales. (as I mentioned above - the cruel and unusal method of killing cannot be compared to methods used to kill other animals for food).

While I agree with Kijana that ramming another boat in any circumstances should be avoided, and especially in the icy waters of the antarctic (and I know people who fish those oceans - and IMHO you've got to be mad to go there in any case), I'm not really sure that what we are talking about here is all that dangerous. Its more a protest - and a symbolic protest.

I guess however after being rammed for coming between whalers and a minke whale, its not surprising that Greenpeace might talk about ramming. Better to be the rammer than the rammee - and if the whalers are going to ram greenpeace for coming between the whale and the harpoon - I'd be fully on the side of ramming the whaler.

nope. I didn't see St Moon and St Andrew advancing the notion that murder is a viable response to whaling.

I suspect their writings must therefore be on a par with the Bible and the Quran, and therefore subject to interpretation.

I think Secretary moon does not think a ramming is going to actually kill people, or even injure anyone. I think he is just barking a matter of principle to support his personal ethical viewpoint.

And it seems to me that St. Andrewl has some kind of irrational distrust, disgust or perhaps even hatred of all industry period, regardless of whether that industry kills whales or not. Just like a typical well-fed young suburban leftist.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

for those who went overboard - hypothermia. very very quickly.

again - I didn't see him say this.

actually though, I think killing a whale may not be that different. I won't go into why that is here - because its not scientific, and apparently perceptions that are outside the field of science don't count.

But what I do think is that a creature that lives such a long time must develop some intelligence, and it wouldn't surprise me if a creature that cares for its young, and develops such strong social bonds, has strong emotions.

And its not only whales I feel that way about.

We should be thinking long and hard about what we are doing.

If we decide that killing animals for food is OK - then so be it. Maybe thats too hard to change and I'm not about to force everyone to be vegetarian - but think about it. Should inflicting such a cruel and terrible death (as occurs when whales are killed) on any sentient being be permissible? Under any circumstances?

I think not.

well thats a good point.

and how big is the greenpeace boat compared to the whaler?

I should think there may be more risk to the environmental warriors.

and being prepared to ram the whaling boat - IF NECESSARY - is possibly the best way to prevent the deaths of whales.

yes. an eco terrorist should properly be a label for those who DESTROY the environment, not those whose agenda is to protect