Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:08:24 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

"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?

Of course not.

You say "of course not, yet you give no examples or cites.

I'm sorry? There are hardly any "examples", analysis or
contructive arguments at all in your posts.


The UN has been anti-American for many years.



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 succeeded ????

The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever between
PLO and Israel. It did more with less than any effort
in recent years. The peaceprocess was going forward until
Sharon's goverment came into power.


And Norway has done exactly what?

Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a
breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self
rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway
has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis
and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with
Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental
palestine demands at a time when most western countries
still were keeping its distance to the PLO.


The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.


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.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.


It explicitly is a *correct* argument. The rules have changed,

If you like to change the rules when it fits your interests,
then yes, I suppose you can make it be correct.


terrorists are a threat, and any country that harbors or
supports them is a threat to the US

Terrorism is hardly a new phenomena, and you really
don't hear the US confronting the UN with a proposal for
redesign of the Chartes to fit the supposed new "world order".

Of course, the US need the rest of the world to obey by
the Charters, so that future renegade nations wont start
attacking eachother because of facial factors. The
current US goverment -really- thinks it's in a unique
position to bring international matters into their own hands.


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.

You might find this article from the Guardian interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html


The Guardian is far out of sync on this issue.

No example?

The Guardian is right on the spot, the US takes international
law into their own hands.

It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
administration's undermining of the International Criminal
Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating
in UN peacekeeping operations. It's a clear indication of
doublestandards when it comes to matters on international
justice.


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.

It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a
matter of telling right from wrong.

Yes, it certainly does have to do with bravery, and the lack
there of. Old europe is afraid of "irritating" the terrorists.

Old, but wise perhaps, americans really have no idea what it's
like to have the horrors of war and occupation at ones own
doorstep.



(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.

You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write.
I don't think I ever meant the above statement to
indicate world domination in that particular areas.

Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
and equality between the sexes far more developed than
most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
(and women).

"Decades ahead of the US"??

Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
equality is renound throughout the world.


What is your unemployment rate,

Currently about 4%.

suicide rate?

12.8 per 100,000 people in 1998.



Regards...