<strong>Yes, but the constitution has the ability to be amended. If it has not then it still does not specifically speak to the UN Charter in the way you are claiming it does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course the constitution can be amended, and so can the U.N. Charter. But it hasn't been.
And I said the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the U.N. Charter because the Constitution existed before the U.N. Charter.
The Constitution specifically speaks of International Treaties.
That's what I said so don't put words in my mouth.
The Constitution specifically speaks of International Treaties.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And speaking of treaties...
The main treaties that the US is currently involved in with the UN regarding sovereignity and international relations are:
Declaration by UN, Signed at Washington Jan 1, 1942
Charter of the UN with the Statute of the Intl Court of Justice annexed thereto. Signed at San Francisco June 26, 1945
Convention on the priveleges and immunities of the UN. Done at New York February 13, 1946
These three can be found at <a href="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/"; target="_blank">the UN site</a>, and say nothing like what you are claiming.
There are other treaties under the headings of:
Agricultural Commodities
Defense
Development Assistance
Economic and Technical Cooperation
Headquarters
Humanitarian Assistance
Postal Matters
Taxation
Telecommunication
Trusteeships
War Crimes
Further, there are treaties with:
UN Children's Fund
UN Environment Programme
UN High Commissioner for Refugees
The Defense treaties are concerning:
Provision of assistance on a reimbursable basis in support of the UN operation in Somalia. 1993
Furnishing of defense articles and defense services by the US to the UN for purposes of supporting the Rapid Reactor Force established by UN Security Council Resolution 998. 1995
Assistance on a reimbursable basis in support of UN operations in central Africa. 1996
If there were evidence to support your supposition, I would be interested in seeing it, but right now it looks grim for your assertion.
The treason has nothing to do with the U.N. Charter Kickaha. It has to do with violating the Constitution. Reread what I'm saying.
The U.S. Constitution binds us to International Treaties. We signed the U.N. Charter so we are now bound by the Constitution to the U.N. Charter.
Violating the U.N. Charter is now violating the supreme Law of the Land.
Article VI
...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
The UN is facing a crisis of relevancy... if the UN is unwilling to enforce its *own* resolutions, then it just shows itself to be the toothless mouthpiece that it fears it is.
UN refuses to enforce its own resolutions -> UN is irrelevant -> UN is a nice showpiece but ultimately ineffective and needs to be scrapped.
Personally I believe that the UN *is* the way to go, but it needs to grow a backbone. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>The treason has nothing to do with the U.N. Charter Kickaha. It has to do with violating the Constitution. Reread what I'm saying.
The U.S. Constitution binds us to International Treaties. We signed the U.N. Charter so we are now bound by the Constitution to the U.N. Charter.
Violating the U.N. Charter is now violating the supreme Law of the Land.
Article VI
...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;</strong><hr></blockquote>
So let me get this straight... you're saying that by signing the UN Charter, any violation of that Charter is now treason as defined in the US Constitution?
Sorry... From Article III.3:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Still wrong. Come on, I just found all this in the last hour or so of web surfing. Use your resources.
So if the UN proves itself to be irrelevant, and needs to be scrapped, then what exactly is the problem with going it on our own to protect our safety?
I'm not saying the UN *has* proven that yet, but it's getting dangerously close in my opinion.
What was said today has nothing to do with whether we go to war against Iraq or not. War is a forgone conclusion at this point, at least by the US and most likely the UK.
Will the UN participate in this war? Probably not. This is going to be an American led war which definitely does not help the image of the US in the Muslim world.
[quote]But I suppose the far left will just dismiss the evidence as fabricated.<hr></blockquote>
It's true that there are many people in the United States who don't want a war. They think that war should always be the last option no matter what and that as long as there are diplomatic channels, that is what should be attempted first.
There's nothing wrong with people asking for a reason of why we need to go to war before going off to fight. People need evidence that this war is worth it, especially with the high price tag associated with it. This war is estimated to cost $150 billion - $200 billion to fight. With cost overruns, it will probably be closer to $250 billion.
I'm sure that many Republicans would like to see that $250 billion used as a major tax cut for the American people.
If the UN was involved, the cost to the American people to fight this war would be significantly less than it is projected to be now, and if there really was good enough proof to wage war with Iraq, don't you think that the UN would get involved? I guess we'll see how this turns out but I expect that at least the US will be at war within weeks.
<strong>This is going to be an American led war which definitely does not help the image of the US in the Muslim world. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It will not help the image of US in any world. The Bush admin already has a jingoist image. Their war mongering and high defence spend agenda is not winning any allies. They have already lost France & Germany.
[quote]<strong>I guess we'll see how this turns out but I expect that at least the US will be at war within weeks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is probably true. I have heard rumors that the week of the 24th is it. They will wait for the hajj to be over and the pilgrims to move out of Saudi Arabia.
So if the UN proves itself to be irrelevant, and needs to be scrapped, then what exactly is the problem with going it on our own to protect our safety? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Either we work with the UN to fix it or we officially dump it (and the bogus reasons we're usurping to go to war.)
Either we work with the UN to fix it or we officially dump it (and the bogus reasons we're usurping to go to war.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you! God, I was beginning to wonder about you...
I'd *prefer* that we work with the UN to fix it, but if the UN decides not to enforce its own resolutions, and the citizens of the US are under serious threat (which I believe we are), then the US *should* act unilaterally.
If that means officially withdrawing from the UN, you realize that means the UN would collapse... would you really want that? Neither would I.
<strong>...but if the UN decides not to enforce its own resolutions, and the citizens of the US are under serious threat (which I believe we are), then the US *should* act unilaterally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As far as I'm concerned we would have to act unilaterally, consequences be damned. I just don't think there is an immenent threat, and I do believe the U.N. will come around. The burden of proof is on us though, and that burden should be high. War isn't a toy, even if we can win them like they're games.
EDIT: I really, really, don't want to see the U.N. disappear though. It's got a bright future if we help it along.
Since Powell has now given a long list of allegations of evidence of WMD etc, why is nobody asking the following questions:
Have the inspectors been left out of the intelligence loop?
Have the inspectors been given this list of suspect sites to inspect? If not, then why not?
If they already have this list of sites, one can only presume they would take them seriously enough to go and search them. Have they been there and what have they found there?
Isn't the whole point of this operation to RID Saddam Hussein of these supposed weapons, which is the why the inspectors are there in the first place?
Another thought: In the "Future Hardware" section, which I look at occasionally, every time a rumor or photo is presented re. future Apple hardware, there is a predictable chorus of "Photoshop!!!" In these days of computer created/enhanced imagery and sound, it is only natural to be skeptical.
I wonder if any of the intelligence agencies involved have a copy or two of Photoshop® etc within their technical arsenal, where images can be created and doctored to bolster a case, (and similarly for creating and manipulating audio recordings)?
Or does the integrity, honesty, fairness and unbiased mission of the CIA, NSA, etc (!) prevent them from being anything other than entirely truthful?
The reason the current Admin wants to dump the UN is because it doesn't allow us to conduct military operation purely in self-interest. And it shouldn't. The most important thing it does is mediate international disputes. It provides a very important service for the world. The loss of the UN would mean inevidable collapse of the US (Which is inevidable anyway) since it would leave us as sole mediators. The current doctrine, <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"; target="_blank">as shown in the blueprint,</a> is to engage in peacekeeping operations only in a manner that benefits the US directly. Pax Americana
We are not the only country in the world and many nations depend on the UN. The problems that result from it are due to individual nations causing problems, as is the case with the US presently. The UN doesn't enforce its own resolutions?! The current one only exists because of US pressure. What is stopping us is the fact that there are a number of countries in the UN, not just the US, and they have their own interests. How can we expect them to have the same interests, especially at a time when the current US doctrine is to be as self-serving as possible?!?!?!
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Isn't the whole point of this operation to RID Saddam Hussein of these supposed weapons, which is the why the inspectors are there in the first place? </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, unfortunately the whole point (from certain perspectives) is to secure a motive to go to war.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Have the inspectors been left out of the intelligence loop?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are speaking right to the "horse's mouth", so to speak. What better "intelligence" is that?
<strong> [quote]Isn't the whole point of this operation to RID Saddam Hussein of these supposed weapons, which is the why the inspectors are there in the first place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The whole point of this operation is for Saddam to openly disclose and relinquish unsanctioned weapons and materials to the inspectors. Intelligence operations by the US will remain what they have always been- covert. It is the independent source to which UN inspector findings can be checked against, not a tool under the UN inspectors.
The operation to definitively rid Saddam of unsanctioned weapons will be the war to shortly follow.
I'd *prefer* that we work with the UN to fix it, but if the UN decides not to enforce its own resolutions, and the citizens of the US are under serious threat (which I believe we are), then the US *should* act unilaterally.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying you aren't, but I'm interested to know the reasons why you believe citizens of the US are under serious threat from Saddam or Iraq. Do you personally feel threatened, on a continent thousands of miles away? Don't you feel the US could detect an imminent attack before it started? Do you think Iraq, if left alone, would actually attack the US or any western country? Do you feel there is a proven link with Iraq and terrorism?
As a UK citizen, I don't feel under threat from Iraq at all, though that could change if Iraq were attacked.
Let's just wait and see what pans out. There is a long history of deceit, the is a shadow of doubt over some of the sources. I'm not saying nothing he said is true (isn't it funny that I have to explicitly spell that out for some of you), it is just very premature and not very smart to just jump on this morning's presentation and declare it fact.
Also, what ever happened to pakistan? Last time I chacked, not only did they provide North Korea with the technology for nuclear warheads, but many in the nuclear program are sympathizers to militant islamists. If there is a treat from anywhere, it is from there. Or is everyone to blind (or uninformed) to realize that? Funny how Pakistan gets so much money and support from the US, too. Kind of shows you how Iraq really isn't our threat, ay?
Comments
<strong>Yes, but the constitution has the ability to be amended. If it has not then it still does not specifically speak to the UN Charter in the way you are claiming it does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course the constitution can be amended, and so can the U.N. Charter. But it hasn't been.
And I said the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the U.N. Charter because the Constitution existed before the U.N. Charter.
The Constitution specifically speaks of International Treaties.
That's what I said so don't put words in my mouth.
<strong>
The Constitution specifically speaks of International Treaties.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And speaking of treaties...
The main treaties that the US is currently involved in with the UN regarding sovereignity and international relations are:
Declaration by UN, Signed at Washington Jan 1, 1942
Charter of the UN with the Statute of the Intl Court of Justice annexed thereto. Signed at San Francisco June 26, 1945
Convention on the priveleges and immunities of the UN. Done at New York February 13, 1946
These three can be found at <a href="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/"; target="_blank">the UN site</a>, and say nothing like what you are claiming.
There are other treaties under the headings of:
Agricultural Commodities
Defense
Development Assistance
Economic and Technical Cooperation
Headquarters
Humanitarian Assistance
Postal Matters
Taxation
Telecommunication
Trusteeships
War Crimes
Further, there are treaties with:
UN Children's Fund
UN Environment Programme
UN High Commissioner for Refugees
The Defense treaties are concerning:
Provision of assistance on a reimbursable basis in support of the UN operation in Somalia. 1993
Furnishing of defense articles and defense services by the US to the UN for purposes of supporting the Rapid Reactor Force established by UN Security Council Resolution 998. 1995
Assistance on a reimbursable basis in support of UN operations in central Africa. 1996
If there were evidence to support your supposition, I would be interested in seeing it, but right now it looks grim for your assertion.
Edit: Added the link to the UN site.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
The U.S. Constitution binds us to International Treaties. We signed the U.N. Charter so we are now bound by the Constitution to the U.N. Charter.
Violating the U.N. Charter is now violating the supreme Law of the Land.
Article VI
...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
<strong>
The UN is facing a crisis of relevancy... if the UN is unwilling to enforce its *own* resolutions, then it just shows itself to be the toothless mouthpiece that it fears it is.
UN refuses to enforce its own resolutions -> UN is irrelevant -> UN is a nice showpiece but ultimately ineffective and needs to be scrapped.
Personally I believe that the UN *is* the way to go, but it needs to grow a backbone. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree 100%.
<strong>The treason has nothing to do with the U.N. Charter Kickaha. It has to do with violating the Constitution. Reread what I'm saying.
The U.S. Constitution binds us to International Treaties. We signed the U.N. Charter so we are now bound by the Constitution to the U.N. Charter.
Violating the U.N. Charter is now violating the supreme Law of the Land.
Article VI
...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;</strong><hr></blockquote>
So let me get this straight... you're saying that by signing the UN Charter, any violation of that Charter is now treason as defined in the US Constitution?
Sorry... From Article III.3:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Still wrong. Come on, I just found all this in the last hour or so of web surfing. Use your resources.
<strong>
I agree 100%.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So if the UN proves itself to be irrelevant, and needs to be scrapped, then what exactly is the problem with going it on our own to protect our safety?
I'm not saying the UN *has* proven that yet, but it's getting dangerously close in my opinion.
Will the UN participate in this war? Probably not. This is going to be an American led war which definitely does not help the image of the US in the Muslim world.
[quote]But I suppose the far left will just dismiss the evidence as fabricated.<hr></blockquote>
It's true that there are many people in the United States who don't want a war. They think that war should always be the last option no matter what and that as long as there are diplomatic channels, that is what should be attempted first.
There's nothing wrong with people asking for a reason of why we need to go to war before going off to fight. People need evidence that this war is worth it, especially with the high price tag associated with it. This war is estimated to cost $150 billion - $200 billion to fight. With cost overruns, it will probably be closer to $250 billion.
I'm sure that many Republicans would like to see that $250 billion used as a major tax cut for the American people.
If the UN was involved, the cost to the American people to fight this war would be significantly less than it is projected to be now, and if there really was good enough proof to wage war with Iraq, don't you think that the UN would get involved? I guess we'll see how this turns out but I expect that at least the US will be at war within weeks.
<strong>This is going to be an American led war which definitely does not help the image of the US in the Muslim world. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It will not help the image of US in any world. The Bush admin already has a jingoist image. Their war mongering and high defence spend agenda is not winning any allies. They have already lost France & Germany.
[quote]<strong>I guess we'll see how this turns out but I expect that at least the US will be at war within weeks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is probably true. I have heard rumors that the week of the 24th is it. They will wait for the hajj to be over and the pilgrims to move out of Saudi Arabia.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Jamil ]</p>
<strong>
So if the UN proves itself to be irrelevant, and needs to be scrapped, then what exactly is the problem with going it on our own to protect our safety? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Either we work with the UN to fix it or we officially dump it (and the bogus reasons we're usurping to go to war.)
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What part of Article VI of the Constitution don't you understand? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>
Either we work with the UN to fix it or we officially dump it (and the bogus reasons we're usurping to go to war.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you! God, I was beginning to wonder about you...
I'd *prefer* that we work with the UN to fix it, but if the UN decides not to enforce its own resolutions, and the citizens of the US are under serious threat (which I believe we are), then the US *should* act unilaterally.
If that means officially withdrawing from the UN, you realize that means the UN would collapse... would you really want that? Neither would I.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
<strong>...but if the UN decides not to enforce its own resolutions, and the citizens of the US are under serious threat (which I believe we are), then the US *should* act unilaterally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As far as I'm concerned we would have to act unilaterally, consequences be damned. I just don't think there is an immenent threat, and I do believe the U.N. will come around. The burden of proof is on us though, and that burden should be high. War isn't a toy, even if we can win them like they're games.
EDIT: I really, really, don't want to see the U.N. disappear though. It's got a bright future if we help it along.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</p>
Have the inspectors been left out of the intelligence loop?
Have the inspectors been given this list of suspect sites to inspect? If not, then why not?
If they already have this list of sites, one can only presume they would take them seriously enough to go and search them. Have they been there and what have they found there?
Isn't the whole point of this operation to RID Saddam Hussein of these supposed weapons, which is the why the inspectors are there in the first place?
Another thought: In the "Future Hardware" section, which I look at occasionally, every time a rumor or photo is presented re. future Apple hardware, there is a predictable chorus of "Photoshop!!!" In these days of computer created/enhanced imagery and sound, it is only natural to be skeptical.
I wonder if any of the intelligence agencies involved have a copy or two of Photoshop® etc within their technical arsenal, where images can be created and doctored to bolster a case, (and similarly for creating and manipulating audio recordings)?
Or does the integrity, honesty, fairness and unbiased mission of the CIA, NSA, etc (!) prevent them from being anything other than entirely truthful?
We are not the only country in the world and many nations depend on the UN. The problems that result from it are due to individual nations causing problems, as is the case with the US presently. The UN doesn't enforce its own resolutions?! The current one only exists because of US pressure. What is stopping us is the fact that there are a number of countries in the UN, not just the US, and they have their own interests. How can we expect them to have the same interests, especially at a time when the current US doctrine is to be as self-serving as possible?!?!?!
<strong>
Isn't the whole point of this operation to RID Saddam Hussein of these supposed weapons, which is the why the inspectors are there in the first place? </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, unfortunately the whole point (from certain perspectives) is to secure a motive to go to war.
<strong>Have the inspectors been left out of the intelligence loop?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are speaking right to the "horse's mouth", so to speak. What better "intelligence" is that?
<strong> [quote]Isn't the whole point of this operation to RID Saddam Hussein of these supposed weapons, which is the why the inspectors are there in the first place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The whole point of this operation is for Saddam to openly disclose and relinquish unsanctioned weapons and materials to the inspectors. Intelligence operations by the US will remain what they have always been- covert. It is the independent source to which UN inspector findings can be checked against, not a tool under the UN inspectors.
The operation to definitively rid Saddam of unsanctioned weapons will be the war to shortly follow.
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
Wrong paste from the clipboard in the wrong thread.
<strong>
I'd *prefer* that we work with the UN to fix it, but if the UN decides not to enforce its own resolutions, and the citizens of the US are under serious threat (which I believe we are), then the US *should* act unilaterally.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying you aren't, but I'm interested to know the reasons why you believe citizens of the US are under serious threat from Saddam or Iraq. Do you personally feel threatened, on a continent thousands of miles away? Don't you feel the US could detect an imminent attack before it started? Do you think Iraq, if left alone, would actually attack the US or any western country? Do you feel there is a proven link with Iraq and terrorism?
As a UK citizen, I don't feel under threat from Iraq at all, though that could change if Iraq were attacked.
Just curious...
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
On powell's sources:
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/04/wirq04.xml/"; target="_blank">telegraph</a>
<a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=375403"; target="_blank">the independent</a>
Let's just wait and see what pans out. There is a long history of deceit, the is a shadow of doubt over some of the sources. I'm not saying nothing he said is true (isn't it funny that I have to explicitly spell that out for some of you), it is just very premature and not very smart to just jump on this morning's presentation and declare it fact.
Also, what ever happened to pakistan? Last time I chacked, not only did they provide North Korea with the technology for nuclear warheads, but many in the nuclear program are sympathizers to militant islamists. If there is a treat from anywhere, it is from there. Or is everyone to blind (or uninformed) to realize that? Funny how Pakistan gets so much money and support from the US, too. Kind of shows you how Iraq really isn't our threat, ay?
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>