Forum Home | Login

terpfan1980

Join Date 08/2004

+13

U.N. Panel Rejects Bush Stance on Military Action

yet another attempt to make themselves irrelevant...

Link here: U.N. Panel Rejects Bush Stance on Military Action
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 1, 2004; Page A15

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30 -- An influential U.N.-appointed panel challenged the Bush administration's right to use military force against an enemy that does not pose an imminent military threat. The 16-member panel, which was appointed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, said in a long-awaited report that only the U.N. Security Council has the legal standing to authorize such a "preventive war."
The panel's findings reflect persistent international unease over the U.S. invasion of Iraq last year without an explicit council endorsement, noting that "there is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power, or by any single -- even benignly motivated -- superpower." It also recommends the establishment of five guidelines that must be met before force can be legitimately used -- including a determination that force is used as a last resort and that the threat is serious.

... more at linked article

emphasis added mine

Sure, yeah, right. Just what the U.S. wants, to let a bunch of hate filled, anti-semitic and terrorist filled nations to help determine when or if we can take action to defend ourselves or elminate a threat to us or our allies. That's gonna play very well in Washington. NOT! At least not as long as there's no President Kerry, and no President Clinton.

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sure, yeah, right. Just what the U.S. wants, to let a bunch of hate filled, anti-semitic and terrorist filled nations to help determine when or if we can take action to defend ourselves or elminate a threat to us or our allies. That's gonna play very well in Washington. NOT! At least not as long as there's no President Kerry, and no President Clinton.

I am not sure what they would define as imminent military threat.

Your assertion that things would change with Clinton or Kerry bowing to UN pressure is off base. They would work with the UN to change their stances. The Bush administration dictates to the UN and of course they are resentful. This administration does not understand playing well with others, hence our all time low standing in world affairs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Your assertion that things would change with Clinton or Kerry bowing to UN pressure is off base. They would work with the UN to change their stances. The Bush administration dictates to the UN and of course they are resentful. This administration does not understand playing well with others, hence our all time low standing in world affairs.

My assertions are no more offbase than yours when you claim "The Bush administration dictates to the UN and of course they are resentful"

Honestly, it was very well documented that Kerry had taken positions that the U.S. military should only be used at the whim of the U.N. and/or with the blessing of the U.N.

Both Clintons (Bill and Hillary) have been supporters of the U.N. as well.

And claiming that "The Bush administration dictates to the UN and of course they are resentful" is just a crock. The Bush admin sent their best negotiators (Powell and company) through the process of negotiating with the U.N. about Iraq and other problems, and basically were told to take a hike.

The U.N. has outlived it's usefulness, and as noted in my comments in the original post - they're a bunch of member nations that have deplorable records on human rights who've gone and given the top post on human rights to one of the absolute worst nations. They've also historically sided with the anybody but Israel crowd when it comes to matters in the middle-east. They suck 25% from the U.S. and give almost no benefit in return. It is time for them to go, and they seem to be hastening the exit with crap such as that noted in the original post.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

This administration does not understand playing well with others, hence our all time low standing in world affairs.

Care to quantify that with anything other than opinion?

Cheers,
Daiwa

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #3 By: Daiwa - 12/1/2004 1:57:00 PM
This administration does not understand playing well with others, hence our all time low standing in world affairs.

Care to quantify that with anything other than opinion?

Cheers,
Daiwa

Of course he won't do that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I hate when the hate-filled anti-semites won't let us wage war! How rude.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

Doubt any such resolution will ever see the light of day. After more than a decade of paying lip service to resolving the horrible human suffering and defiance of UN resolution after resolution under Saddam they're offended that someone shat rather than got off the pot, inconveniently interrupting the gravy train they had going. Well, tough titties. Just another bit of political maneuvering by Annan, who is a despicable individual. I'm personally all for taking the building back and putting it to some decent use, maybe as condos or something. Let 'em move in with the IRC & pay all their own bills for awhile.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Successfully updated karma reason!

Not to worry. When was the last time the UN took a stance on anything and backed it up (other than scandals and cocktail parties) It's a club for people with big mouths and small balls. The UN building needs to be relocated to Tehran or Pyongyang and the 4 Billion a year we dump into that cesspool can be redirected to something that wont be used against us.
Seriously, the UN needs a major enema.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You guys should read the stuff I posted about Anon and his son. Here's a link:

Link

Successfully updated karma reason!

I wonder if US is alone when it insists that its own interests outweigh those of the UN.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

I wonder if US is alone when it insists that its own interests outweigh those of the UN.

The UN has no interests but those given to it by the member nations (other than the scams run by its corrupt staff) and no nation should be subservient to it in matters that it considers central to its own security. Membership in the UN is voluntary. It is not a government unto itself, though its current leadership, not to mention certain media outlets like the NYT, has delusions along those lines.

But you've hit the fundamental weakness (and central conundrum) of the organization right on the head.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Successfully updated karma reason!

Interesting twist on the new UN report. while the new report clarifies that only the UN has the legal authority to invade another country pre-emptively (as is already the legal case, with such authority granted by countries which sign the UN charter), it also clearly expands on when the UN should intervene and sees far more US style intervention.

You are aware that the new report recommends clear definition of terrorism and a clear policy of intervention if a country fails it's citizens?

Under the new proposal Bush would not have had to convince the UN of WMD, the fact that Saddam was practicing genocide on his own people would have been all the authority needed for action. The problem with Iraq was not that the UN didn't want Saddam removed, but that there was no clear reason why they could authorise force to remove him. The new proposals would make such reasons clear, and include the responsibility to intervene in internal countries if they are killing their own citizens.

Paul.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

Honestly, it was very well documented that Kerry had taken positions that the U.S. military should only be used at the whim of the U.N. and/or with the blessing of the U.N.

actually what i believe youre alluding to was kerry's statement that he would use military force only when appropriate...and that a factor in determining the propriety would be 'the global test'.

the global test has a long tradition in american history; the first instance being the declaration of independence in which jefferson's first paragraph states: a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation

the second paragraph which expands on the general principle that the colonists have a right to revolt against the tyranny of the crown concludes with this sentence: To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

what follows is a bill of 27 specific actions that combine to meet the global test for revolution...as well as 2 paragraphs detailing the colonists attempts at resolution to avoid using force.

since jefferson went to such lengths to justify the revolution and the declaration was signed by representatives of all the colonies, it's fair to assume they shared jefferson's concern about meeting that global test no?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

Have to disagree with you there, kingbee.

Jefferson & the signers weren't submitting a list of justifications for the approval of any external entity. The founders were from the "gentleman" school which obliged them to offer to the world the reasons they were embarking on secession from England. I'm sure they hoped that the Declaration would garner external sympathy & support for their actions, but the revolution was a done deal.

In a general sense, the Declaration loosely defines the circumstances in which, in their opinion, forceful overthrow of a government by its own citizens is justified. While it is the diplomatic & gentlemanly thing to "submit to a candid world" the reasons for a course of action, that's more along the lines of a public notice in the paper. Nothing about the language in the Declaration suggests we should be bound to submit any justification to that candid world for permission to take a course of action.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

Jefferson & the signers weren't submitting a list of justifications for the approval of any external entity

nowhere did i say they were.

While it is the diplomatic & gentlemanly thing to "submit to a candid world" the reasons for a course of action, that's more along the lines of a public notice in the paper. Nothing about the language in the Declaration suggests we should be bound to submit any justification to that candid world for permission to take a course of action.

nor was kerry saying anything more than his decisions to use military force would also take into consideration a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. i dont find that problematic; in fact it shouldnt need be articulated.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

kingbee -

Perhaps you are arguing that "global" test actually means "local" test? What's the purpose or point of a "global test" if not for determining the temperature of the water?

And Jefferson did not say that declaring independence required a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, only that a decent respect to the opinions of mankind obliged them to explain their reasons. Those are two completely different things carrying completely different meanings. Do you really not see the difference?

Cheers,
Daiwa

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

And Jefferson did not say that declaring independence required a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, only that a decent respect to the opinions of mankind obliged them to explain their reasons. Those are two completely different things carrying completely different meanings. Do you really not see the difference?

i think its possible im not being clear enough. this is exactly what kerry said:

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

i totally agree that jefferson was saying "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind obliged them to explain their reasons." when you follow that up with the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world" there's really no substantial difference between kerry's statement and jefferson's as far as actual wording or meaning.

when kerry brought up the global test thing, i had two almost simultaneous reactions: a. i believed i knew what he meant b. i also saw how easily it could be misunderstood or misconstrued.

the disconnect is in the minds of those who seem to have heard more than was said.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

kingbee -

You are quite clear and I have no problem with Kerry's statement except for that word prove. His phraseology requires that "the world" consider the reasons legitimate before we take action and I don't accept that. Neither would Jefferson. Did he wait for the world to approve the Revolution? I don't think so. He felt the proof was evident and offered it up, but he wasn't about to wait for "the world" to get on board. The Declaration wasn't a Plea to the World, it was a Declaration.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have a problem in that Kingbee is only looking at Kerry's statements made during the debate cycle. Dig up some of his older statements, then you'd get my point about his wanting to cede control of our troops to the U.N.

Successfully updated karma reason!

As an example of what I mean, try this link: Kerry Wanted U.N. to Control U.S. Troops

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. – Democrat presidential front-runner John Kerry called for U.N. control of the U.S. military in an interview 34 years ago with Harvard University's student newspaper.

Kerry was a long-shot congressional candidate in Massachusetts when The Crimson interviewed him in February 1970, 10 months after he returned from a tour of duty in Vietnam.

'Internationalist'

He described himself as "an internationalist," and said he wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity."

"I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations," Kerry said.

"The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos, and nobody seems to care," he later said.

As a presidential candidate, Kerry has said he supports the autonomy of the U.S. military and has not called for a reduction in CIA operations.

"Through 20 years in the United States Senate, John Kerry has stood up for the strongest military on Earth and a muscular internationalism that makes America safe while winning the cooperation of allies," said Kerry spokesman David Wade. "Unlike George Bush, John Kerry knows that while the United States never gives veto power over our security to any international institution, multilateralism is a strength and not a weakness."

Former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, who has endorsed Kerry, said Kerry's statements were appropriate for their time.

"In the context of the Vietnam War, those comments are completely understandable," he said.

... more at link... Another link with more nice fun: The original interview is near the bottom half of this page

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: