[teemudog]

This is my 4th Presidential election voting opportunity. I used it with pride. It was not the lesser of two evils for me, but, if it was, you bet I would use my vote against the most evil.

[skippy the wonder dog]

VLH, are you asserting that the US has a sovereign right to take military action other than in direct self-defence?

That's not sovereignty, except in the eyes of military hegemonists.

Are you suggesting that the US had no right to use force in the Balkans or in Somalia? Coz there were no direct attacks on the US in those cases and pretty good reasons for justifying use of force. I await the other dropped shoe and the head exploding.

No exploding heads here. The principle is clear: the use of force is only justified either in response to an attack, or with UN sanction.

Somalia, Bosnia, etc.: these were UN-sanctioned uses of force. Gulf War I was UN-sanctioned. NATO ISAF is UN-sanctioned. These were not expressions of American "sovereignty"; the US did not act alone, but first had to secure the support of the international community.

An attack on Iran without UN sanction, to propose an obvious example, would be illegal. The United States has no sovereign right to bomb Iran, or indeed to bomb anyone else.

Frankly, your notion of "sovereignty" is kind of worrisome; it is a perversion and reversal of the actual definition of sovereignty to suggest that the US has the right to ignore the sovereignty of other nations and to violate that sovereignty with military force. Exceptionalism defined, in short.

[VioletlightHeron]

No exploding heads here. The principle is clear: the use of force is only justified either in response to an attack, or with UN sanction.

Somalia, Bosnia, etc.: these were UN-sanctioned uses of force. Gulf War I was UN-sanctioned. NATO ISAF is UN-sanctioned. These were not expressions of American "sovereignty"; the US did not act alone, but first had to secure the support of the international community.

An attack on Iran without UN sanction, to propose an obvious example, would be illegal. The United States has no sovereign right to bomb Iran, or indeed to bomb anyone else.

Frankly, your notion of "sovereignty" is kind of worrisome; it is a perversion and reversal of the actual definition of sovereignty to suggest that the US has the right to ignore the sovereignty of other nations and to violate that sovereignty with military force. Exceptionalism defined, in short.

It is simply laughable to depend on an institution such as the UN to secure the support of the international community for military action when such action can be bottled up in the Security Council by nations with their own agendas. You might as well go out in the street and pray for peace and an end to the genocide in Darfur before Russia and China lift their little pinkie fingers in sympathy. In my opinion, any military action the US undertakes is legally valid if the executive branch presents its case to Congress for support and ratification. The President can make a case to the UN in support, but the US should not be constrained by a lack of action in the UN.

[skippy the wonder dog]

It is simply laughable to depend on an institution such as the UN ... In my opinion, any military action the US undertakes is legally valid if the executive branch presents its case to Congress for support and ratification.

Laughable or no, it's the UN Charter, to which the United States is a signatory; thus, it's international law. Thanks for your opinion, but illegal is still illegal.

[grimes]

It is simply laughable to depend on an institution such as the UN to secure the support of the international community for military action when such action can be bottled up in the Security Council by nations with their own agendas. You might as well go out in the street and pray for peace and an end to the genocide in Darfur before Russia and China lift their little pinkie fingers in sympathy. In my opinion, any military action the US undertakes is legally valid if the executive branch presents its case to Congress for support and ratification. The President can make a case to the UN in support, but the US should not be constrained by a lack of action in the UN.

Yeah just like that time your country invaded Iraq because they had all those weapons of mass destruction. How'd that work out for you guys anyway?

[VioletlightHeron]

Here we go again with the "Bush lied, people died" meme :roll: :roll:

Last time I checked, there was stability, reconstruction and the possibility of a democratic nation over there in Iraq. So I'd say that after quite a few missteps, Iraq appears to be on the path to being a peaceful neighbor. Which is far more than anyone could say about Saddam's Iraq. Gee, let me think about which I would prefer, a nation that is working to reconcile all the different tribes that constitute its citizens or a tribal dictatorship with bloody hands and nuclear ambitions? Because you just know the UN and The Messiah would just solve that problem all hunky dory, not :roll: :roll:

[skippy the wonder dog]

This must be some new definition of "stability" with which I'm not familiar.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov...hdad-bombs

So there's today's news.

But why follow you in your attempt to change the subject? Fact: the US is a signatory to the UN Charter. Do you uphold the rule of law, or discard it when it proves inconvenient?

[VioletlightHeron]

This must be some new definition of "stability" with which I'm not familiar.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov...hdad-bombs

So there's today's news.

But why follow you in your attempt to change the subject? Fact: the US is a signatory to the UN Charter. Do you uphold the rule of law, or discard it when it proves inconvenient?

So you take one single event from today and declare the whole thing a complete disaster and wipe your hands of the mess. Nice to know the international law expert has some backbone. :roll:

If you remember the debate in the UN about Iraq, Saddam was in clear violation of a dozen UN Security Council resolutions going back to 1991. The US wanted to hold Saddam accountable for these violations, get inspectors into Iraq to verify any existence of WMD and destroy them. Invasion was not the first preference of the US, but Russia, China and France all decided for their own political, self serving reasons to block meaningful sanctions. Given a choice between allowing Saddam to remain in power in violation of UN resolutions and possibly continuing his ambition for nuclear weapons or going in and removing him to change the inherent instability of the region, Bush decided the status quo was not tolerable for US national security. We went hat in hand to the UN and the Security Council, some of whom were taking oil-for food kickback money from Saddam and his cronies, decided to block it for their own selfish reasons. We were upholding the UN Security Council resolutions that other nations chose to ignore and subvert for their own national interests.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme</a><!-- m -->

[skippy the wonder dog]

So you take one single event from today and declare the whole thing a complete disaster and wipe your hands of the mess.

Uh, no ... I simply observed that your claim of "stability" isn't accurate.

If you remember the debate in the UN about Iraq ... for their own selfish reasons.

I'm sorry. What was the middle thing? Something about upholding the rule of law, or ignoring it when it's inconvenient? I lost track somewhere.

I think you were saying you discard it when it's inconvenient.

[VioletlightHeron]

So you take one single event from today and declare the whole thing a complete disaster and wipe your hands of the mess.

Uh, no ... I simply observed that your claim of "stability" isn't accurate.

Then I guess, based on the daily police reports from Toronto, NYC and Detroit, you'd claim stability isnt possible in those areas either? Way to stretch the context like its silly putty, Skippy.

If you remember the debate in the UN about Iraq ... for their own selfish reasons.

I'm sorry. What was the middle thing? Something about upholding the rule of law, or ignoring it when it's inconvenient? I lost track somewhere.

I think you were saying you discard it when it's inconvenient.

Funny how upholding UN Security Council resolutions gets warped into ignoring the rule of law by somebody who conveniently ignores the bribing and subverting of international law by non-American states when it is convenient to castigate the US. Go get hosed, Skippy :roll:

[skippy the wonder dog]

Then I guess, based on the daily police reports from Toronto, NYC and Detroit, you'd claim stability isnt possible in those areas either? Way to stretch the context like its silly putty, Skippy.

I'm sorry, I haven't been keeping up on the news from Toronto. Certainly, all those car-bombings would tend to indicate that the place isn't exactly stable.

My bad.

Funny how upholding UN Security Council resolutions gets warped ....

The US was not upholding Security Council resolutions when they invaded Iraq. They did not have a resolution authorizing military action. The US submitted such a resolution to the Security Council shortly before the invasion, but then withdrew it when it became clear that the Security Council would not pass it.

By doing so, the Bush administration left themselves the option of arguing that earlier resolutions authorized the invasion by referring to "serious consequences." But by withdrawing their resolution the US tacitly admitted that the UN Security Council would not authorize invasion. The argument you're falling back on was disingenuous from the get-go.

[VioletlightHeron]

You seem perfectly happy supporting the inaction of the Security Council that was wallowing in the Oil for Food Programme bribe scheme. For a man of principle, you hang out with some really criminal elements, Skippy.

The Security Council has been an ineffectual, corrupt shambles for most of its history, with the exceptions of the Korean War and Gulf War I. Then again, I can't say I'm surprised by the ineffectualness of the international law/UN professional class because if they actually did their jobs and worked with member nations to solve crisises that pop up, they would be out of a job, now wouldn't they?

And for the record, Bush did make a sincere effort to win Security Council approval for military action but gave up on it when he and his advisers realized France, China and Russia were using the SC to cover for their client state and their own national interests. You are simply too enamored of supposed purity and justice of international law to realize states sometimes use the trappings of international law to cover for their national self interests or corruption.

[NegPhil]

The rumor is President Obama is going to name Robert Kennedy Jr. as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

How awesome is that? The Water keeper himself will be in charge of the EPA.

[skippy the wonder dog]

You seem perfectly happy supporting the inaction of the Security Council ... states sometimes use the trappings of international law to cover for their national self interests or corruption.

Actually, I believe simply that you abide by your agreements. Evidently, you're on the side of ignoring them when they become inconvenient. Thanks for clarifying.

[VioletlightHeron]

The rumor is President Obama is going to name Robert Kennedy Jr. as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

How awesome is that? The Water keeper himself will be in charge of the EPA.

The Water Keeper? Dear God, first The Messiah and now The Water Keeper? When did DC turn into Mount Olympus for Democrats? :roll: :lol: