On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:51:59 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

(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.

"What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack
on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto
resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it?

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.

And Norway has done exactly what?

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".

The UN is a sad joke, and sometimes must be treated
as such.

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.

And the former Soviet Union and the PRC followed this?
The fact that your country is of no military value does
not mean that the US should not act in our National
interests.

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"


Not a factor. Your support of Saddam is despicable, not
the US action which deposed him.

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?


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

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?


Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
regularly visited by the International Red Cross.

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.


No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.

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.

That is idiotic. We will not ratify treaties that are designed to
destroy our military power, having said that, we have no need
to perform such tests and no plans to conduct them.

(snip)
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?


The national interests of the US definitely come before the
interests of the "rest of the world". The UN is a joke, and
not a very good one at that.

(snip)

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

Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.


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...


As I said, the UN is a sad joke

Al Minyard