Well the US is not acting unilaterally by the very definition of the word.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is an important point. In an effort to avoid semantic games I think we should clarify though, that those of us claiming Bush is willing to attack unilaterally, are really saying 'outside of the UN'. This is, in essence, unilaterally even if Britain is "for us" and not "against us."
Acting outside of the democratic process the UN has set up is what we're attacking. Maybe we shouldn't call it 'unilaterally', but that's just a short word that's easy to type. If you'd rather, we/I could be saying "outside of the constitution, UN Charter and international law and precedent", but that seems rather wordy.
[quote]<strong>This is an important point. In an effort to avoid semantic games I think we should clarify though, that those of us claiming Bush is willing to attack unilaterally, are really saying 'outside of the UN'. This is, in essence, unilaterally even if Britain is "for us" and not "against us."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, then why not say "outside of the UN"?
I know why, I'd just like to hear you say it.
[quote]<strong>Acting outside of the democratic process the UN has set up is what we're attacking. Maybe we shouldn't call it 'unilaterally', but that's just a short word that's easy to type. If you'd rather, we/I could be saying "outside of the constitution, UN Charter and international law and precedent", but that seems rather wordy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not just a short word, it's a complete mischaracterization. The reason your lot says "unilateral" is because it's a pathetic attempt to demonize the US and make it seem like the entire world is protesting when that isn't really the case. A lot of the world is with us and a lot of the world isn't. You want to make it seem like everything outside of the US is screaming against it, which is foolish.
That's why you say "unilateral" even though it makes no sense.
<strong>His willingness to act unilaterally, or just simply outside of UN support, would set a precedent for that destroys the democratic process the UN upholds.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While the U.N. uses some democratic process in its institutions, its function is not to uphold democracy but to address world problems and seek to solve them, including by the use of force.
While the U.N. can mandate the use of force, it doesn't deny its member states from the sovereign right to exercise force on their own sovereign initiative if needs be.
Use of military force by a U.N. member state isn't restricted to those cases where it's mandated by the U.N..
Live with it.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Live by the sword, die by the sword. Our nation is founded on democracy. It's utterly appaling that we would shun those principles now, under these conditions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That a democracy may go to war from time to time doesn't mean it ?lives and dies by the sword?, or that it ceases to be a democracy for it.
This is an important point. In an effort to avoid semantic games I think we should clarify though, that those of us claiming Bush is willing to attack unilaterally, are really saying 'outside of the UN'. This is, in essence, unilaterally even if Britain is "for us" and not "against us."
Acting outside of the democratic process the UN has set up is what we're attacking. Maybe we shouldn't call it 'unilaterally', but that's just a short word that's easy to type. If you'd rather, we/I could be saying "outside of the constitution, UN Charter and international law and precedent", but that seems rather wordy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Call it whatever you want, you can not say it is what the US is doing. The US is going to the UN (again and again) and the US is negotiating and discussing the situation with allies and other UN members. So, the Bush admin's actions have been neither unilateral or outside of the UN.
Doesn't mean they aren't willing to do both, but till now, they haven't. So, those useless human-shields aren't defending the Iraqis from US, they are simply using it as a mean to protest the Bush administration. If the could as least have the honesty to admit that is their single goal, they might have a leg to stand on. As it is they only make themselves look like confused, ill-informed patsies that they are.
While the U.N. uses some democratic process in its institutions, its function is not to uphold democracy but to address world problems and seek to solve them, including by the use of force. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the purpose of the U.N. isn't to spread or uphold democracy. But when it does address the world's problems, it does so using democratic means. That's what's important to uphold, even if at this point in time Lybia isn't a democracy.
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>
While the U.N. can mandate the use of force, it doesn't deny its member states from the sovereign right to exercise force on their own sovereign initiative if needs be.
Use of military force by a U.N. member state isn't restricted to those cases where it's mandated by the U.N..
Live with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is that the U.S. gave of some of it's sovereignity when it signed the U.N. charter.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Zeal for the U.N..... dodgy ground there. The US and Britain have exhibited unlimited zeal for enforcing S.C. Res. 1441 on the one hand, but if the next resolution on Iraq is defeated then there will be lots of stamping feet and screaming and yet more yelling that the UN is irrelevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>The human shields are idiots and those who aren't completely stupid are going home.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Any admiration I did have for the human shields evapourated today. A local group left for Iraq on a big red bus a few weeks ago, attracting lots of local news coverage. They only arrived a couple of days ago but are already returning home. The reason? Because it's considered too dangerous! Duh
[quote]Do countries surrender their sovereignty at the UN?
The members of the UN are sovereign nations, and the UN Charter is one of the strongest safeguards of sovereignty, enshrining that principle as one of its central pillars. At the same time, most of the problems the world faces today are of such complexity that they cannot be addressed by any single nation acting alone. The UN is where the world's countries come together to address common problems. Working with other countries is an exercise of sovereignty, not a limitation of it. By cooperating in specific areas through the United Nations, States build the structures that make international life possible. Countries voluntarily decide to work together because they feel it is in their best interest. The universality and impartiality of the UN provides the common ground where countries can achieve maximum benefits from cooperation, while guaranteeing that their sovereignty will be protected.<hr></blockquote>
?We are impartial, we are goodness personified, we make the greatest coffee in the world too, etc??
The self-congratulatory rhetoric notwithstanding, in one word, their answer to the question is: No.
[and my answer to you is: T'is true.]
So the U.N. isn't even a ?lite? version of the U.S.A. or of the Helvetic Confederacy, nor an alpha version of some ?United Federation of Planets?.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
Any admiration I did have for the human shields evapourated today. A local group left for Iraq on a big red bus a few weeks ago, attracting lots of local news coverage. They only arrived a couple of days ago but are already returning home. The reason? Because it's considered too dangerous! Duh </strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny. I have it the opposite way. I thought those people were crazy when they left because they was sure to be used by the rulers. So to go away when the obvious happened is thumbs up to them.
The only thing worse position I would see myself in than dropping bombs on Baghdad would be protecting military installations for Saddam (unless the bombs were some of them hitting civilians. Then being onboard a F16 would be worse)
The best thing to do as a civilian in the west is 1) To back the franco-german proposal or (if you really wants to risk your life) 2) join a resistance group in Iraq. People did the same to fight fascism in Spain in the mid 30sand they were heroes in my book.
<strong>While the U.N. uses some democratic process in its institutions, its function is not to uphold democracy but to address world problems and seek to solve them, including by the use of force.
While the U.N. can mandate the use of force, it doesn't deny its member states from the sovereign right to exercise force on their own sovereign initiative if needs be.
Use of military force by a U.N. member state isn't restricted to those cases where it's mandated by the U.N..
Live with it.
(...)
No member state of the U.N. gave away anything of its sovereignity upon signing the U.N. Charter.
No problem here.
Other than that I don't see where the due process of the U.N. institutions is being hindered.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The rules of war are laid down by "public international law", defined (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) by the "STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE" and the Geneva convention. Ratified by the US.
A unilateral, preemptive attack on a sovereign country is a breach of these principles. So It's not about the sovereignty of the US. Its about the sovereignty of Iraq.
We might not like it, but even badguys have rights.
The rules of war are laid down by "public international law", defined (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) by the "STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE" and the Geneva convention. Ratified by the US.
A unilateral, preemptive attack on a sovereign country is a breach of these principles. So It's not about the sovereignty of the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since one learned colleague affirmed that U.N. membership was a surrender (?giving up? being his terms if my memory serves) if some sovereingity by member states, I had to disspell that misconception, for the record.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Its about the sovereignty of Iraq.
We might not like it, but even badguys have rights.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since the U.N. was officially established in 1945, there have been dozens of cases in which (fully sovereign) member states have attacked other (fully sovereign) member states, without asking the U.N. for any authorisation.
Good guys as well as bad guys still have the right to fight each other.
Now, I'm no legal expert for international treaties, conventions, or concordats. But if the U.S.A. is currently in any breach of any of its signed commitments, why don't you sue them on that caps locked court you mentioned?
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
Comments
<strong>
I find it amazing your zeal for the UN, how hypocritical.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's less the UN and more democracy. Our own constitution as well.
<strong>
Well the US is not acting unilaterally by the very definition of the word.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is an important point. In an effort to avoid semantic games I think we should clarify though, that those of us claiming Bush is willing to attack unilaterally, are really saying 'outside of the UN'. This is, in essence, unilaterally even if Britain is "for us" and not "against us."
Acting outside of the democratic process the UN has set up is what we're attacking. Maybe we shouldn't call it 'unilaterally', but that's just a short word that's easy to type. If you'd rather, we/I could be saying "outside of the constitution, UN Charter and international law and precedent", but that seems rather wordy.
[quote]<strong>This is an important point. In an effort to avoid semantic games I think we should clarify though, that those of us claiming Bush is willing to attack unilaterally, are really saying 'outside of the UN'. This is, in essence, unilaterally even if Britain is "for us" and not "against us."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, then why not say "outside of the UN"?
I know why, I'd just like to hear you say it.
[quote]<strong>Acting outside of the democratic process the UN has set up is what we're attacking. Maybe we shouldn't call it 'unilaterally', but that's just a short word that's easy to type. If you'd rather, we/I could be saying "outside of the constitution, UN Charter and international law and precedent", but that seems rather wordy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not just a short word, it's a complete mischaracterization. The reason your lot says "unilateral" is because it's a pathetic attempt to demonize the US and make it seem like the entire world is protesting when that isn't really the case. A lot of the world is with us and a lot of the world isn't. You want to make it seem like everything outside of the US is screaming against it, which is foolish.
That's why you say "unilateral" even though it makes no sense.
<strong>
That's why you say "unilateral" even though it makes no sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So the US instigating a mob action outside of international law is a better way to describe it?
<strong>His willingness to act unilaterally, or just simply outside of UN support, would set a precedent for that destroys the democratic process the UN upholds.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While the U.N. uses some democratic process in its institutions, its function is not to uphold democracy but to address world problems and seek to solve them, including by the use of force.
While the U.N. can mandate the use of force, it doesn't deny its member states from the sovereign right to exercise force on their own sovereign initiative if needs be.
Use of military force by a U.N. member state isn't restricted to those cases where it's mandated by the U.N..
Live with it.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Live by the sword, die by the sword. Our nation is founded on democracy. It's utterly appaling that we would shun those principles now, under these conditions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That a democracy may go to war from time to time doesn't mean it ?lives and dies by the sword?, or that it ceases to be a democracy for it.
<strong>So the US instigating a mob action outside of international law is a better way to describe it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No that's not a better way because it is also very ignorant and biased.
<strong>
No that's not a better way because it is also very ignorant and biased.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why don't you back that up with examples rather than leaving it as a personal attack?
<strong>
This is an important point. In an effort to avoid semantic games I think we should clarify though, that those of us claiming Bush is willing to attack unilaterally, are really saying 'outside of the UN'. This is, in essence, unilaterally even if Britain is "for us" and not "against us."
Acting outside of the democratic process the UN has set up is what we're attacking. Maybe we shouldn't call it 'unilaterally', but that's just a short word that's easy to type. If you'd rather, we/I could be saying "outside of the constitution, UN Charter and international law and precedent", but that seems rather wordy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Call it whatever you want, you can not say it is what the US is doing. The US is going to the UN (again and again) and the US is negotiating and discussing the situation with allies and other UN members. So, the Bush admin's actions have been neither unilateral or outside of the UN.
Doesn't mean they aren't willing to do both, but till now, they haven't. So, those useless human-shields aren't defending the Iraqis from US, they are simply using it as a mean to protest the Bush administration. If the could as least have the honesty to admit that is their single goal, they might have a leg to stand on. As it is they only make themselves look like confused, ill-informed patsies that they are.
<strong>
While the U.N. uses some democratic process in its institutions, its function is not to uphold democracy but to address world problems and seek to solve them, including by the use of force. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the purpose of the U.N. isn't to spread or uphold democracy. But when it does address the world's problems, it does so using democratic means. That's what's important to uphold, even if at this point in time Lybia isn't a democracy.
[quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:
<strong>
While the U.N. can mandate the use of force, it doesn't deny its member states from the sovereign right to exercise force on their own sovereign initiative if needs be.
Use of military force by a U.N. member state isn't restricted to those cases where it's mandated by the U.N..
Live with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is that the U.S. gave of some of it's sovereignity when it signed the U.N. charter.
Live with it.
Agreed. What a waste of life. Hussein doesn't give a sh
<strong>
So, the Bush admin's actions have been neither unilateral or outside of the UN. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, you are correct. We're talking about a hypothetical situation. I don't think anyone has denied that.
<strong>
Zeal for the U.N..... dodgy ground there. The US and Britain have exhibited unlimited zeal for enforcing S.C. Res. 1441 on the one hand, but if the next resolution on Iraq is defeated then there will be lots of stamping feet and screaming and yet more yelling that the UN is irrelevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!
And to think groverat called me hypocritical....
<strong>The problem is that the U.S. gave of some of it's sovereignity when it signed the U.N. charter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No member state of the U.N. gave away anything of its sovereignity upon signing the U.N. Charter.
No problem here.
Other than that I don't see where the due process of the U.N. institutions is being hindered.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>The human shields are idiots and those who aren't completely stupid are going home.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Any admiration I did have for the human shields evapourated today. A local group left for Iraq on a big red bus a few weeks ago, attracting lots of local news coverage. They only arrived a couple of days ago but are already returning home. The reason? Because it's considered too dangerous! Duh
<strong>
No member state of the U.N. gave away anything of its sovereignity upon signing the U.N. Charter. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's simply not true.
No member state of the U.N. gave away anything of its sovereignity upon signing the U.N. Charter.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>That's simply not true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch1/ch1_txt.htm#q5"; target="_blank">What the real U.N. has to say about it:</a>
[quote]Do countries surrender their sovereignty at the UN?
The members of the UN are sovereign nations, and the UN Charter is one of the strongest safeguards of sovereignty, enshrining that principle as one of its central pillars. At the same time, most of the problems the world faces today are of such complexity that they cannot be addressed by any single nation acting alone. The UN is where the world's countries come together to address common problems. Working with other countries is an exercise of sovereignty, not a limitation of it. By cooperating in specific areas through the United Nations, States build the structures that make international life possible. Countries voluntarily decide to work together because they feel it is in their best interest. The universality and impartiality of the UN provides the common ground where countries can achieve maximum benefits from cooperation, while guaranteeing that their sovereignty will be protected.<hr></blockquote>
?We are impartial, we are goodness personified, we make the greatest coffee in the world too, etc??
The self-congratulatory rhetoric notwithstanding, in one word, their answer to the question is: No.
[and my answer to you is: T'is true.]
So the U.N. isn't even a ?lite? version of the U.S.A. or of the Helvetic Confederacy, nor an alpha version of some ?United Federation of Planets?.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
How does putting "their lives on the line ' defend the democratic process[?]
Bunge replies
"Not to be snide, but if you have to ask then I don't think you'll ever understand."
Answer the question or piss off back to your ivory tower on your high horse.
Don't forget that their defence of the democratie process lasted a few days- highly successful there mate.
<strong>
Any admiration I did have for the human shields evapourated today. A local group left for Iraq on a big red bus a few weeks ago, attracting lots of local news coverage. They only arrived a couple of days ago but are already returning home. The reason? Because it's considered too dangerous! Duh
Funny. I have it the opposite way. I thought those people were crazy when they left because they was sure to be used by the rulers. So to go away when the obvious happened is thumbs up to them.
The only thing worse position I would see myself in than dropping bombs on Baghdad would be protecting military installations for Saddam (unless the bombs were some of them hitting civilians. Then being onboard a F16 would be worse)
The best thing to do as a civilian in the west is 1) To back the franco-german proposal or (if you really wants to risk your life) 2) join a resistance group in Iraq. People did the same to fight fascism in Spain in the mid 30sand they were heroes in my book.
<strong>While the U.N. uses some democratic process in its institutions, its function is not to uphold democracy but to address world problems and seek to solve them, including by the use of force.
While the U.N. can mandate the use of force, it doesn't deny its member states from the sovereign right to exercise force on their own sovereign initiative if needs be.
Use of military force by a U.N. member state isn't restricted to those cases where it's mandated by the U.N..
Live with it.
(...)
No member state of the U.N. gave away anything of its sovereignity upon signing the U.N. Charter.
No problem here.
Other than that I don't see where the due process of the U.N. institutions is being hindered.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The rules of war are laid down by "public international law", defined (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) by the "STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE" and the Geneva convention. Ratified by the US.
A unilateral, preemptive attack on a sovereign country is a breach of these principles. So It's not about the sovereignty of the US. Its about the sovereignty of Iraq.
We might not like it, but even badguys have rights.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>
The rules of war are laid down by "public international law", defined (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) by the "STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE" and the Geneva convention. Ratified by the US.
A unilateral, preemptive attack on a sovereign country is a breach of these principles. So It's not about the sovereignty of the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since one learned colleague affirmed that U.N. membership was a surrender (?giving up? being his terms if my memory serves) if some sovereingity by member states, I had to disspell that misconception, for the record.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Its about the sovereignty of Iraq.
We might not like it, but even badguys have rights.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since the U.N. was officially established in 1945, there have been dozens of cases in which (fully sovereign) member states have attacked other (fully sovereign) member states, without asking the U.N. for any authorisation.
Good guys as well as bad guys still have the right to fight each other.
Now, I'm no legal expert for international treaties, conventions, or concordats. But if the U.S.A. is currently in any breach of any of its signed commitments, why don't you sue them on that caps locked court you mentioned?
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>