[ohio]

If the US invades Iraq without the consent of the UN, does the US run the risk of having its membership revoked?

While I highly doubt that will happen, I'm curious.


(Also, please don't turn this into a "the UN has no power anyway" thread.... thanks)

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by ohio
If the US invades Iraq without the consent of the UN, does the US run the risk of having its membership revoked?

While I highly doubt that will happen, I'm curious.


(Also, please don't turn this into a "the UN has no power anyway" thread.... thanks)

They didn't throw the USSR out over Hungary, Czechoslovakia, or Afghanistan. They didnt' throw Iraq out over Kuwait. Or the US in Panama or Grenada.

So no I think there is no risk of that happening.

EDIT oops for the spelling.

 

[Damn True]

No worries, people from Czechoslovakia can't spell Czechoslovakia.

 

[patconnole]

From "panama deception"


The UN general assemby "deplored" the US invasion as a quote "flagrant violation of international law". 75 for, 20 against, and 40 abstentions for the vote.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
From "panama deception"


The UN general assemby "deplored" the US invasion as a quote "flagrant violation of international law". 75 for, 20 against, and 40 abstentions for the vote.

And the vote for the USSR invasion of Afganistan? Or Hungary? Or Czechoslovakia?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by ohio
If the US invades Iraq without the consent of the UN, does the US run the risk of having its membership revoked?

no, cuz the UN has no balls.

Originally posted by ohio
(Also, please don't turn this into a "the UN has no power anyway" thread.... thanks)

uhh, but that's exactly the point.


However, the UN is a good place to air grievances. That seems to be their primary purpose -- a forum to bitch. Now, if RM was willing to make a new section for all the world leaders to come here and complain, we could do away with the UN. But I suspect the programming time ain't worth world peace, so stupid suggestion... nevermind, ignore me.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Damn True
No worries, people from Czechoslovakia can't spell Czechoslovakia.

Ah, so that's why the country broke up....make it easier to spell

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by DRB
And the vote for the USSR invasion of Afganistan? Or Hungary? Or Czechoslovakia?

I'd love to know as well! Send me a documentary to buy that explains it! I take it to mean you think I'm only focusing on US and ignoring others? We've got a bit more of a personal connection to the grand ol' USA than the USSR....

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by DRB
And the vote for the USSR invasion of Afganistan? Or Hungary? Or Czechoslovakia?

I think you'll find the Soviets justified those invasions by saying the governments of those countries "invited" them in to help restore order. As if it makes much difference

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by patconnole
I'd love to know as well! Send me a documentary to buy that explains it! I take it to mean you think I'm only focusing on US and ignoring others? We've got a bit more of a personal connection to the grand ol' USA than the USSR....

No my point is that the USSR didn't get thrown out of the UN for those invasions so why would the US.

I could go on but I think you get the point.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by DRB
No my point is that the USSR didn't get thrown out of the UN for those invasions so why would the US.

I could go on but I think you get the point.

Gotcha-- I wasn't saying the US, or anybody should be kicked out of the UN, just stating what they did the last time we invaded another country.

 

[slein]

in a perfect world, the US wouldn't get thrown out of the UN...

there'd just be a ************* ****load of economic sanctions.




go ACLU!

 

[llkoolkeg]

Then we could start charging those a-holes rent for the prime real estate they inhabit. I love how people say the U.S. owes the U.N. so much money, but if the other countries paid there fair share for all the various military and "humanitarian" operations the U.N. undertakes for its own glory, that would not be the case. The U.N. is truly geared for the European nations- many words but few deeds. Remember- these are the same schmucks who shot down Wilson's League of Nations because it wasn't their idea.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Then we could start charging those a-holes rent for the prime real estate they inhabit. I love how people say the U.S. owes the U.N. so much money, but if the other countries paid there fair share for all the various military and "humanitarian" operations the U.N. undertakes for its own glory, that would not be the case. The U.N. is truly geared for the European nations- many words but few deeds. Remember- these are the same schmucks who shot down Wilson's League of Nations because it wasn't their idea.

You talk as if the UN has personally burdened you, and as if the US contribution to it is somehow more per-capita in the US than in other countries...... Or just more for you personally. Even if it is more per-capita, so what? You sound like the guy who would have been opposed to the US congress, or a state legislature, or any forum where representatives debate-- and would favor the US doing whatever it wants, simply because it can.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by patconnole
You talk as if the UN has personally burdened you, and as if the US contribution to it is somehow more per-capita in the US than in other countries...... Or just more for you personally. Even if it is more per-capita, so what? You sound like the guy who would have been opposed to the US congress, or a state legislature, or any forum where representatives debate-- and would favor the US doing whatever it wants, simply because it can.

...understood what you were trying to say.

 

[patconnole]

Major Payne: "Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth?!"
j/k


You talk (wrote your post) as if the UN has personally burdened you. Is this true? (has the UN personally burdened you?)

It also sounds like (from reading your post, it seems) you believe the US monetary contribution to the UN is more per-capita (per person) than other member states. Do you believe that? Is it true? Who cares, either way?

From your opposition to the UN, it appears you oppose the idea of group representatives getting together to debate issues that affect all group members.... (note the congress/legislature references). Or, you oppose public debate/dialouge in general, and would prefer the US do whatever it pleases, without listening to other UN member states. Is this true?

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by patconnole
You talk (wrote your post) as if the UN has personally burdened you. Is this true? (has the UN personally burdened you?)

It also sounds like (from reading your post, it seems) you believe the US monetary contribution to the UN is more per-capita (per person) than other member states. Do you believe that? Is it true? Who cares, either way?

From your opposition to the UN, it appears you oppose the idea of group representatives getting together to debate issues that affect all group members.... (note the congress/legislature references). Or, you oppose public debate/dialouge in general, and would prefer the US do whatever it pleases, without listening to other UN member states. Is this true?

The UN is a good idea gone bad. It is wise to discuss/debate international issues and to try to defuse conflicts before they escalate into war, but when either the sovereignty or security of our nation is compromised by inactivity and gridlock, it is the responsibility of our leaders to act independent of the UN in our best interest. Have you ever watched an American Presidential Inauguration?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

What about the Congressional equivalent?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Our leaders are responsible for and ultimately answerable to us- US Citizens- not the UN, the EU or any other external organization. If those elected to represent and protect our nation believe that sufficient evidence exists(that the rest of us are wisely not privy to) to constitute a clear and present danger, then it is their OBLIGATION to act against such a threat.

An analogy to illustrate- It is my responsibility as a husband and father to protect my wife and daughter. If some nut-job stalker were to threaten the safety of either one, I would do my best to handle it within the bounds of our legal system. If an order of protection or other legal restraint proved inadequate to protect them and the stalker persisted, I would kill said individual without hesitation and face the legal consequences. My responsibility is first to God and my family and only secondarily to my country and its government. Does this help to clarify my position?

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
The UN is a good idea gone bad. It is wise to discuss/debate international issues and to try to defuse conflicts before they occur, but when either the sovereignty or security of our nation is compromised by inactivity and gridlock, it is the responsibility of our leaders to act independent of the UN in our best interest. Have you ever watched an American Presidential Inauguration?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

What about the Congressional equivalent?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Our leaders are responsible for and ultimately answerable to us- US Citizens- not the UN, the EU or any other external organization. If those elected to represent and protect our nation believe that sufficient evidence exists(that the rest of us are wisely not privy to) to constitute a clear and present danger, then it is their OBLIGATION to act against such a threat.

An analogy to illustrate- It is my responsibility as a husband and father to protect my wife and daughter. If some nut-job stalker were to threaten the safety of either one, I would do my best to handle it within the bounds of our legal system. If an order of protection or other legal restraint proved inadequate to protect them and the stalker persisted, I would kill said individual without hesitation and face the legal consequences. My responsibility is first to God and my family and only secondarily to my country and its government. Does this help to clarify my position?

Yes, thanks. Although, I'm pretty sure the UN does allow a country to defend itself in the face of immenent danger without the gridlock or inactivity of debate. I don't think Powell would have a tough time convincing anybody in the UN (and it wouldn't even be necessary) if he had evidence of Iraqi conversations revealing a planned strike against the US. No, he has evidence of shannanigans with the inspectors. IMO, that's why this war is a tough sell.... and when there is an immenent danger, you don't have to sell anything-- you act, as any of us would.