Jeff, you of all people on this BBS should know that we have bent over backwards to be a part of international treaties, even those which do not make sense. We have changed our intellectual property laws in response to demands of the French in treaty negotiations. This has rendered a good deal of the Copyright Act of 1976 meaningless. I have no specific knowledge of Kyoto and its terms. But to insinuate that we are renegade when our allies ask us to do something we don't like is simply inaccurate.
Hmmm... My favorite example of the US using int'l institutions authority when it suits them actually concerns the World Court, not the UN. The US went through the World Court to get reparations for the hostages in Iran. Subsequently, Nicaruagua went through the World Court to get reparations from the US for the financing of the contras against a government that observers from more than 40 nations (and the UN) deemed freely elected. Nicaruagua won the case in the World Court, but after recognizing it's authority when it suited us, the US denied the authority of the World Court in this situation. The legal precedents against the US are enormous. If nothing else, corporations are often held liable in states they do not conduct operations in because the commercial sale of their products (even indirectly) allows them the benefit of the legal system within that state. IOW, if you avail yourself of a system, then you legitimize it and recognize it's authority. We didn't. We've done similar things with the WTO (explicitly violating rules that we voted for) and the UN. Until int'l institutions have an independent enforcement mechanism, they'll be toothless. But to have an enforcement mechanism, we'd all have to surrender more sovereignty than we seem prepared to do. That's fine. But it's objectionalbe for people to quote the authority of such bodies when it suits them. And then when the tables are turned, to deny it.
<blockQUOTE>Originally posted by Refman I have no specific knowledge of Kyoto and its terms. But to insinuate that we are renegade when our allies ask us to do something we don't like is simply inaccurate.</blockQUOTE> All you need to know is that it was never ratified. Comparing it to breaking ratified UN resolutions is not right. Now if France wants to say, "we'll back you in Iraq if you agree on the Kyoto Protocol," that is hypocrasy and using the UN to political gain. The UN has no choice, imo, if it wants to give force to its words; Iraqi is breaking nearly 1/2 dozen UN resolutions, and time is up! <b>Just Deploy a UN Battalion to Check Bush's Allegations</b> If the UN backs Bush and deploys a UN battalion to march into Baghdad to peacefully speak to Saddam and start looking into Bush's allegations, what the hell is Saddam going to do. There is a peaceful solution here. Deploy a well-protected UN battalion to speak to him. If he shoots at them or denies entry, release the hounds. This does not have to be a either don't let Bush attack or let him. You can let the UN handle it....if they would just DO IT!!!!
Netanyahu is giving a speech right now to the House of Reps and he made an interesting plea to those who do not support Bush's stance on Iraq. He said something to the extent of, "To those of you who question President Bush and his actions, do we wait until Iraq builds weapons of mass destruction AND uses them until we say 'ok, now we should take action?" " An obvious, yet very good point
NJRocket: Of all the dictators to have obtained nuclear weapons, what do you find unique about Sadam that would indicate that he's willing to use them? Mao was not. None of the Russian leaders were. Pakistan has not. So far, only the US has used nuclear weapns (I believe the use was justified personally, but we remain the only nation to have employeed them). Specifically, why would deterrence, which has been extremely successful even with radicals like Mao, fail with Sadam?
As much as I don't like Mao, the former leaders of the USSR and the Pakistani government, they are EASILY distinguishable here. Saddam has shown a willingness to USE WMD. He has used them...extensively. Saddam has publicly stated how much he hates us and that 9/11 was "God's punishment" on the US. Saddam said that anybody who attacks Iraq will suffer "unimaginable consequences." Hmmmm...what could THAT mean? Is it possible that he ALREADY HAS WMD??? One of the dangerous things about a Saddam with WMD is that he has a tendency to grossly miscalclate. This would make a WMD strike much more likely. Nothing good will come of him acquiring nukes.
One UN resolution that the U.S. is at least thinking about breaking is invading an independent sovereign nation.
I think if he gets his hands on nukes, the problem wont be whether or not he will definitely use them. The problem will be that he can threaten to use them at any time. (I think he was thwarted form using them in the past if im not mistaken.) Then, if we or anyone else decides to take action against him, he will indeed use them in a "defensive" manner. Also, Iraq is harboring terrorists (according to US intelligence). Iraq praised the 9-11 attacks. An Iraqi paper (i do not have a link but it was reported on MSNBC yesterday during the 9-11 ceremonies) ran a picture of the burning trade center in yesterdays paper and its caption read something to the extent of 'America's punshment'. Therefore, IMO, Saddam would either use the Nukes himself or make it feasible for the terrorists to do so...whether it was against ISrael or the US or anyone else.
<blockQUOTE>Originally posted by haven Of all the dictators to have obtained nuclear weapons, what do you find unique about Sadam that would indicate that he's willing to use them?</blockQUOTE>The is completely irrelevant. It is not against UN resolutions for countries like Pakistan and France to develop nuclear weapons. However, Iraq is not allowed to. The difference is that the UN thinks he is going to use them, whereas other "dictators" (as you call them) built them for that weird notion of Dr Strangelove defense.
So you believe in asking the UN for permission any time we need to battle an enemy, regardless of the circumstances?
I don't believe it has to be with UN support. For instance Afghanistan was in retaliation to an attack that happened to us. The UN did support it, but if even if it hadn't I would have been supportive of that invasion. I think most of the time if eveidence is presented to the UN they will act. The reason why the UN so far hasn't been 100% behind the idea of an attack, is this is the first time Bush spoke to them on the issue. There hasn't been evidence offered, showing the absolute need for an invasion. Maybe that process has been started now. To initiate an invasion of a sovereign nation like Iraq did to Kuwait, or what some people want the U.S. to do to Iraq is wrong. I know there would be reasons behind a U.S. invasion that many people would agree with, but it's kind of like laws concerning homicide. Murder in the heat of passion etc., is a crime of a lesser degree, but it's still a crime. The idea that Hey Partner brings up is a perfectly good example of what could happen. The UN should draft a resolution and enact it. It would end in either the removal of Saddam's weapons, and weapon making labs, or an invasion of Iraq. But it would be done in cooperation with most of the world. If the evidence is there that there is a serious enough threat, then bring it up, and let's act on it.
Bottom line...if the terrorists had Nukes on 9-11, we wouldnt be here having this conversation right now. The US will always regret not knowing about what was going to happen. If we knew about it, we would have foiled the 9-11 plot. We now know for a fact that Saddam is in the process of building nukes. What are we waiting for? To be attacked so we know for sure??? Netanyahu made another good poitn when he said this... Pakistan has nuclear capability. What happens if the Taliban took over Pakistan? If Saddam gets them, he will use them..or he will allow the terrorists to use them. Case closed.
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." --Bill Clinton, 12-16-98
Where were you on ...say...9-11-01? Are you kidding me? Sadam is now harboring the terrorists and condoning the attacks. Bush made it very clear last September...you are either with us or you are with the terrorists. Iraq is obviously with the terrorists and must be dealt with immediately.
<blockQUOTE>Originally posted by FranchiseBlade One UN resolution that the U.S. is at least thinking about breaking is invading an independent sovereign nation. </blockQUOTE> First, there is no "resolution" about this; you are thinking of the UN "Charter." Secondly, the Charter allows any country to defend itself against aggressors. Bush is rightfully (and as required) making the argument to the Security Council that Iraq's refusal to obey treaties of surrender is an act of aggression against peace, and he is warning the Security Council that he will act. This is required by the UN's charter. So far, he is going by the book, and the UN must respond. It is up to the UN to resolve Bush's allegations of a threat to security. If they don't, unilateral action as self-defense is allowed by the Charter until the Security Council votes that it isn't a threat. And the allegations that Saddam is harboring terrorists (which is against one of the Iraqi War Resolutions) who are actively waging war against the US <b>does indeed warrant self-defense</b>. He can't claim some loop-hole that he's not doing anything aggressive or we are invading is sovereignity, when terrorists are invading ours from allegedly inside his country, especially when all that is against an Iraqi War Resolution stating Iraq cannot harbor terrorists. Like I said in my previous post, the Iraqi Resolutions state that the UN gets to do inspections of Saddam's facilities on an ongoing basis. The UN can go in there with an armed battalion of inspectors to discuss Bush's allegations. <b>Why should the UN guess, and how long do we wait?</b>
I was in NY on 9/11/01. Even Bush's own administration admits there is no evidence linking that attack with Iraq.
<blockquote>Originally posted by FranchiseBlade I was in NY on 9/11/01. Even Bush's own administration admits there is no evidence linking that attack with Iraq. </blockquote>Not anymore he isn't. You don't have to be "in NY" to read the speech. He is saying they have new evidence that fleeing Afghan terrorists are now in Iraq, and Saddam knows it.
Am I missing something or are people defending Sadam's 'right' to break UN resolutions by saying that we don't always follow UN resolutions? I really don't see the correlation at all. Sadam is a madman that has built or is building WMD. He is not doing this for self defense, he is doing this to impose his will on other countries. I'm sick of hearing people (congress) taking sides on this issue based on political aspirations. This should not be an issue of Democratic vs Republican. If Sadam doesn't allow UN inspectors in, and doesn't allow them full access, then we need to go in and take him out. I don't want to wait till another catastrophe happens and then question our intelligence on why we couldn't stop it. GOOD BYE HUSSEIN!!!!!!!!!!!! PERIOD!!!! END OF STORY!!!!!!
You are correct. I meant the charter and not a resolution. I don't think that makes it any better, but perhaps worse. I'm glad Bush is taking the case to the UN. Yes you are correct that the charter does allow a country to defend against agressors. In the case of a U.S. invasion in Iraq, the U.S. would be the agressor and not Iraq. True, but attacking Iraq would not be in self-defense. Again even Bush's own administration admit there is no evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11. I'm all behind an armed UN force accompanying inspectors back into Iraq, and if that force is prevented from going where they need to, or are fired upon, then an invasion would certainly be appropriate. So far, though, even Bush's own administration can't make the connection between 9/11 and Saddam. I don't say there won't be a reason to invade, just that if we're not careful we could be the ones in violation of the UN.
This is dubious since they rejected thoughts of attacking nuclear sites...thus, it does not follow that they would have used nukes in any way. Obviously, this has no bearing on th Iraq aituation, but I just thought I would clarify that. heypartner, What is with this new activity in these parts? Are you feeling neglected by all of the newbies talking to themselves? I think that we should just nuke South Africa...that will teach those damn Iraqi bastards.
