(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

That was his point, mine was "Europe tend to respect UN
resolutions".


Ahhh, now we're getting specific. Europe respects resolutions.
OK, can you name the last time the US violated a UN resolution?

I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
nations has agreed on.

You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
it has failed so far.



As for US violation? Would you care to look a bit closer
on the Iraqi conflict? I won't pretend to be an expert,
I can only comment what I've seen brought up in the newsmedia,
but, for instance, it seems to me the US is violating UN
General Assembly resolution 377, which decleares that it
is to meet to resolve any possible threats to or breach of
the peace if the UNSC fails to maintain peace because of a
lack of unanimity.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/852...5340060479d/55
c2b84da9e0052b05256554005726c6%21OpenDocument


Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly
formed and signed in 1945) which require that:

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
and security, and justice, are not endangered".


It also violates Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter which
declears that no member state has the authority to enforce
any resolution with armed force on its own and also that the
UNSC -must- authorize the use of military force.

It violates Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter which
states that:

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as
crimes under; international law: Planning, preparation,
initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war
in violation of international treaties, agreements
or assurances"


According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?


By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?


If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq, it
appears both France and Germany much more recently than the
US....

Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war
on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.


Again, diverting the subject. The subject is; Europe always
obeys the UN and the US doesn't.

That was your subject, not mine.

I'm sorry, I've got it clarified now. Europe respects UN
resolutions and the US does not. That's your point. I'll be
waiting while you tell me the last UN resolution the US
violated.

I'm sure you realize the difference between "tend to" and
"always".


The US hasn't had a live test in over 25 years.

That the US won't ratify CTBT seems to indicate they will.


Wrong. The fact the CTBT outlaws subcritical testing is why
congress will never ratify it. If we (the US) sign an
international legal document, we obide by it (despite what you
and the rest of Europe falsely believe), the same cannot be said
of China, North Korea and Iran. Why should US nuclear stockpile
modernization be permenantly frozen while our enemies continue
their work?

Perhaps because the US has done all the tests they need on
the comparable technology. All in all I see no good reason
why the US wont ratify CTBT, IMO it certainly sends out the
wrong kind of signals to your "enemies".

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a nuclear deterrent, I fully
believe it's a vital reason why the west has been able to
stay out of large-scale conflicts for the past 50 years.


Well, do you have any comments on why the US vetos just about
any resolution dealing with the palestine issue, and other
nations do not?

I've already explained that, and by the way, this is a poor
argument to support your facts. The US, by exercising its *legal
UN veto authority*, is not "disrespecting the UN", quite the
opposite, we are working within the UN's own system. Exercising
a veto is not a good example of how the US doesn't respect UN
resolutions.

IOM it's also a good example of how the US feels it's in a
position to dominate the decitions and will of other nations.

In some issues it's seems quite difficult for the US to come
to realize that its national interests does not go before the
interests of the rest of the world. In particular the UN
wasn't created as a benefitial body for the US, but for
the entire international community. You might argue that it's
far from perfect, but what better choices are available?


To me it lookes like Sharon has shattered
most efforts made in the past decade to bring about some
hope of peace and stability to the region, and the US seems
determined to support that.

I'm no fan of Sharon either, but until the UN at least realizes
that Isreal has security issues, and begins addressing those
with UN resolutions, you're right, the US will continue to veto
these resolutions.

If Israel wanted to bring its security issues on the table
it wouldn't do everything in its powers to destroy the peace
process. IOM the Israelis need to stop the continious provoking
of the Palestinians and instead work with them to create a
livable society.

Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.


Quick question; was there a UN resolution
condeming Egypt for their attack on Isreal during the Yom Kippur
War in 1973? Was one even seriously debated in the security
council?

There wasn't a resolution to my knowledge. I don't think
there was a UN resolution condeming Israel in 1967, 1956
or 1947 either.


Regards...