slothrop Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Annan - U.S. Violated International Law This is not news - anyone who is a lawyer or even has a basic notion of international law knows this to be true. The scary part is that the neo-cons don't care?! That is their answer to this ciritque. They see international law as an unfortunate mistake of the 20th century. They are on a mission to erase the 20th century (abolish international law, new deal programs, worker rights, anti-trust laws, enviromental protections, etc., etc,). However, the neo-cons further destabilize the global community by violating international law in such acute ways, when we should be striving to strengthen international law! Terrorism, global poverty, and AIDS are global problems that will require global solutions. Kerry should be all over this. How can Bush continue to say that he worked hard to gain international support! I laugh at that statement everytime I hear it.
Bad Things Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Lock the war mongering/war profiteering mother f'ers up.
KD in CA Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Yeah, and what did Kofi say about the Oil for Food scam that was run by his son in connection with our euro "allies"? I guess that didn't violate International Law?
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I can see his point, but then again, the UN didn't act when we DID go into Iraq, so what can you say to that, Annan? The UN is useless when the big boys do whatever the heck they want in the world; we proved it last year quite well. What a sham.
slothrop Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 I can see his point, but then again, the UN didn't act when we DID go into Iraq, so what can you say to that, Annan? The UN is useless when the big boys do whatever the heck they want in the world; we proved it last year quite well. What a sham. 33684[/snapback] The problem is that the UN could not act legally! If it did it would be legitimizing an illegal action. The Neo-Cons designed this conundrum to place the UN in an impossible place. Say what you like about the UN - but strive to fix it not destroy it. THe model of international relations the Neo-Cons strive for is a pre-20th centrury "wild-west" model, where the isolation is the rule, except if you are big enough to conquer others. In an age of significant global problems that are not isolated to national boundries the pre-20th century model will (has) have a devastating destabalizing effect.
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I can see his point, but then again, the UN didn't act when we DID go into Iraq, so what can you say to that, Annan? The UN is useless when the big boys do whatever the heck they want in the world; we proved it last year quite well. What a sham. 33684[/snapback] True enough. If the UN cared one iota about international law, then why weren't they concerned enough about Iraq's violations of international law to do something about Hussein before it got to this point. Not that I supported the war...but I support the UN even less. If they want to take the moral high road and start preaching "international law", they should have 1) started it YEARS ago, and 2) actually backed up their talk. The UN is little more than a great big pile of horseshit looking for a place to stink at this point...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 True enough. If the UN cared one iota about international law, then why weren't they concerned enough about Iraq's violations of international law to do something about Hussein before it got to this point. Not that I supported the war...but I support the UN even less. If they want to take the moral high road and start preaching "international law", they should have 1) started it YEARS ago, and 2) actually backed up their talk. The UN is little more than a great big pile of horseshit looking for a place to stink at this point... 33698[/snapback] OBVIOUSLY... our actions proved to be based on bogus evidence, but there is PLENTY of evidence of the UN's failings in the past few years. Saddam should have NEVER been able to pull what he did in the first place. If they would have acted accordingly, it never would have created the opportunity for a crazy war. Question is, what do we do then?
_BiB_ Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 True enough. If the UN cared one iota about international law, then why weren't they concerned enough about Iraq's violations of international law to do something about Hussein before it got to this point. Not that I supported the war...but I support the UN even less. If they want to take the moral high road and start preaching "international law", they should have 1) started it YEARS ago, and 2) actually backed up their talk. The UN is little more than a great big pile of horseshit looking for a place to stink at this point... 33698[/snapback] Move it to Paris?
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Move it to Paris? 33727[/snapback] I'd vote for that!
VABills Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I'd vote for that! 33743[/snapback] Hey look we found something the smurf actually would vote for. Make it down on the calander.
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I'd vote for that! 33743[/snapback] What, are you nuts? Chirac's anti-Americanism is already enough to fuel a few minor proxy-wars, and you want to give control of the international ruling body to the French???? Put it in Warsaw...or Sofia. Or even Riga. Some Eastern European country that prefers economc ties with the US to French hegemony via the EU.
VABills Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I think we should put it in Israel myself.
/dev/null Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 if kofi doesn't like how we behave, i say we just withdraw our membership (and our funds) and watch the UN go the way of the League of Nations
PastaJoe Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 i say we just withdraw our membership (and our funds) and watch the UN go the way of the League of Nations Yeah, we all know how well things went after the League of Nations dissolved.
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 What, are you nuts? Chirac's anti-Americanism is already enough to fuel a few minor proxy-wars, and you want to give control of the international ruling body to the French???? Put it in Warsaw...or Sofia. Or even Riga. Some Eastern European country that prefers economc ties with the US to French hegemony via the EU. 33765[/snapback] I don't care where they put it. Having it here hasn't given us much "control" of it. I'd like to see the U.S. secede from the damn thing completely.
PastaJoe Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 If you think that one country should "control" an organization of all countries, then you don't understand its purpose.
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 If you think that one country should "control" an organization of all countries, then you don't understand its purpose. 33817[/snapback] "This nation is prepared to present its case against the threat of peace … in the United Nations or in any other meeting without limiting our freedom of action." Know who said this? "World Justice cannot be a hit-or-miss system. We cannot be satisfied with an arrangement where our system of international laws applies only to those who are willing to keep them." Or this?
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 If you think that one country should "control" an organization of all countries, then you don't understand its purpose. 33817[/snapback] There's "should", and there's "would". Having the UN in NYC may not give us any control over it...but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if moving the UN to Paris eventually led to the UN being suborned by France's vision of a France-dominated EU.
stuckincincy Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 What, are you nuts? Chirac's anti-Americanism is already enough to fuel a few minor proxy-wars, and you want to give control of the international ruling body to the French???? Put it in Warsaw...or Sofia. Or even Riga. Some Eastern European country that prefers economc ties with the US to French hegemony via the EU. 33765[/snapback] Personally, I would kick the UN out of NYC, and in the spirit of good will, offer Guam as an alternative.
GG Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Yeah, we all know how well things went after the League of Nations dissolved. 33798[/snapback] I'll take a guess. Europe insisted on usurious war reparation payments that destabilized Weimar, which paved the way for an ultranationalist maniac to take control who would be a good buffer bewteen Communists & civilized Europe. And after he was done with Communists, he would easily be removed from power by the civilized Europeans. Do I get a cookie?
Recommended Posts