"If you don't like it, leave"

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
77 Senators and 296 members of the House disagreed with you including prominent Democrats such as Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards. George Bush disagrees with you and so does Bill Clinton

[/ QUOTE ]

They must have been wrong too. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[elwoodblues]

Your discussion about "serious consequences" does not change the fact that the resolution was the UN's to enforce. The US might be the largest provider of personnel in UN actions, that still doesn't change the fact that the resolution was the UN's to enforce.

You might be right that it is time we told the UN they were worthless...all the more to reason not to include violation a UN resolution as the reason to go to war.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

While both expressions of opinion should indeed be allowed to be aired and heard as such, this does not mean that we should accept them as having somehow equal value in a debate!

I maight say that in a true debate neither would have any value, but I see your point.

Accusing Americans of disloyalty because they disagree with or are disrespectful towards their President

Not that I think that this is an accusation directed at me, but, for the record, that's not what I was doing.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Whie the "war " on drugs is bad policy, this doesn't mean the federal government should have no place in fighting such a war.

This might be a good debate for another thread. I contend that no government should have the authority to tell me what I can or cannot put into my body of my own free will.

I'll start the thread.

[Gamblor]

The UN is a group of partisan states that is a waste of time.

The fact that 300 million Arabs have 22 voting representatives while 300 million Americans have 1 voting representative is a travesty of justice, veto power aside.

Look at the UN conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa. Hijacked by Arab activists, it turned into the single greatest anti-Israel public event in world history.

Now, if all of these states and protestors have a problem with Israel that's one thing, but to turn a legitimate conference on world-wide racism into a single week-long Israel-bashing session is indicative of the process of the United Nations - anyone who screams loud enough to drown out reason and rational thought gets their voice heard.

[elwoodblues]

I know that you are probably just making a separate point (that the UN is worthless) than the one I was making. I'll try to restate my point again (note that my position has NOTHING to do with the value of the UN).

The United States is a member state of the UN.
The UN passed various resolutions against Iraq.
Iraq violated those resolutions.
As a member state, it is not the United States role to enforce the violations of those resolutions. It is the role of the UN itself to enforce those resolutions and, if it chooses to do so, engage in military actions involving troups from its member states. This might just be semantics to some, but to me it is a big deal.

Analogous situation (kind of):
California is a state in the US.
The US passes a law stating that all states are required to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
One state refuses to do so. The US recognizes the violation of the law and chooses to enforce the law by using economic sanctions against the state...despite the urging of larger states to launch a war against the state.
Disagreeing with the decision of the US, California decides to go at it alone and launches an attack.

[Gamblor]

Members of an organization must remain "in line" if that organization is to strengthen itself (Assuming, of course, that the strength of the organization is necessary to carry out its mandate).

My point was that the UN itself is not be all and end all of world politics. It's a good idea, and there are people in there working hard to acheive consensus on a lot of issues.

But part of American ideology is having the chutzpah to go it alone if it believes in a cause, even if others do not believe it is worthy. It's the same reason you're allowed to campaign for a Democratic president - you believe that despite the current Republican grip on power, the nation (and more importantly you would be better off with the Democrats in power.

Conclusion: Keep working toward a "global village", but to forget the principles that make you an individual is akin to suicide as a sovereign state.

[elwoodblues]

I really don't disagree with what you're saying. I think we're just making two different points. Individual autonomy is absolutely necessary. It just doesn't make sense to say "Screw the UN" in one breath then "we're going to war to enforce UN resolutions" in the next.

[Gamblor]

It seems I'm not articulating my point.

Yes, that would seem like hypocrisy.

My point was that the UN does not consist of all these nations in accord with each other.

There are UN nations that supported the war. There are UN nations that were against the war - the reason the UN as a whole did not support the war was due to the Arab bloc and European states with Arab interests, esp. Russia and France. That was my "U.N.funny joke" post - that the UN does not have one viewpoint, but rather many different opinions as varied as the members states - yet the states who are able to shout loudest (i.e. most votes - for example, the Arab bloc's 22 vs. the Americans' single vote) are able to force the passing of resolutions.

That a resolution has been passed is by no means an indication of consensus in the UN.

Since there are some nations that did in fact support war efforts, such as Great Britain, the US was justified in using a UN resolution as one of many pretexts for military action. At no point did the US say "screw the UN". It in fact said, ipso facto "screw the member states of the UN that vote in blocs because it is one of their own kind who are receiving the brunt of the US military efforts, and screw the states that are so dependent economically (read: Elf Oil, the French oil company) with those blocs that moral issues are pushed to the side".

The second "U.N.funny joke" post was written to illustrate that it must be acceptable for a member of a group to recognize the valid resolutions that uphold the mandate of the organization - i.e. the disclosure of all WMDs. Yet, it must also be acceptable for a member to recognize the resolutions that are invalid - i.e. that do not uphold the mandate of the UN simply because the bloc is more concerned with maintaining its status quo - cheap oil for the French, arms sales for the Russians, and the dream of the great Muslim Pan-Arabian peninsula for the Arab blocs.

[Rushmore]

This is exactly the point.

The definitions have changed, and the notions of "fiscal conservative" and "socially liberal," etc. come into view.

Many like to think of Libertarians as "conservative," for instance, when in many ways, they are far more socially liberal than 95% of those on that side of the aisle.

I don't know. I mean, I am told that LBJ was a big old Liberal Civil Rights Nut.

I am told quite a lot of things, actually.