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.


That's laughable coming from someone in Europe. The "coalition of the willing"
assembled against Iraq last year was nearly twice the size as the coalition in
'91, yet France, Germany and Russia were ready to veto; "what other nations has
agreed on". If you don't like the whole UN veto system write your ambassador to
the UN and complain, but don't claim the US is a sinister, evil nation for
working with the construct of the UN Charter.

You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.

It is a black and white issue. Either the US respects the UN or it doesn't. You
argue it doesn't, I argue it does, at least as much as European nations.

WRT the Paliestine issue it has failed so far.

Ohh, so the US has failed on the Palistinean issue huh? Well, then I suggest
the EU step in and pick up where the US failed. The US has taken more of an
interest in helping the Palistineans than Egypt, Jordon, Saudi Arabia and most
definitely the EU combined. The EU contibution to helping the mid-east crisis
is to bitch at the US when we support Isreal. Way to go, that'll help make
progress.


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.

There was unanimity, the last UN resolution (sorry, we made so many against
Iraq I've ignored the resolution numbers) on Iraq threatened; "severe
consequences" should Iraq not fully cooperate with inspectors. The UN reported
Iraq was being deceptive and to the US "severe consequences" meant war. We're
sorry if it meant another UN resolution to France and stern words of
admonishment from Germany. The US acted with the authority of the last UN
resolution.

Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2

Wrong, "severe consequences" were promised by UN resolution and delivered by
the "coalition of the willing".

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.

Number one, we weren't on our own, number two the UNSC authorized the use of
force when they threatened "severe consequences". Additionally, older UNSC
resolutions also threatened Iraq with armed reprisal should they violate any
one of the *two dozen* resolutions regarding them.

"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"

Not applicable due to UNSC resolutions authorizing force.

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?

Uhh, no. US involvement in the United Nations was not part of a treaty ratified
by congress, it is an international organization and US involvement with said
organization has nothing to do with US Constitution any more or less than our
involvement in the WTO.

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?

Anyone who's familar with the Geneva Accords knows full well that any Taliban
fighters captured in other than an *officially recognized* military uniform and
all Al Queda captured were, by definition, unlawful combatants. With that
being said, I think the Afghani's captured as part of the Taliban without an
"officially recognized" uniform, that we cannot directly tie to Al Queda should
be released. Afghanistan was a fourth world country, holding a man as an
unlawful combatant simply because he did not have an "officially recognized"
uniform under those conditions seems unfair.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"