|
mnottertail -> RE: Impeachment? (3/25/2011 6:47:15 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: Moonhead
(In fact, Kofi Annan was still claiming that it was an illegal act, and that the chimp should have gone through the security council instead of staging a unilateral invasion with his poodle, after the invasion.)
I'm sorry, but you and Ron seem to have a misunderstanding of the differences between international law and Kofi Annan's opinion.
He stated his opinion, but unfortunately for him (and you) his opinion is not supported by the facts.
To illustrate, what legal action was taken to enforce or certify Annan's opinion?
And, I will say, claiming that the unsupported opinion of the kleptocratic responsible for the "Food for Oil" program (among other things) really doesn't look for good for you.
Firm
Ron has no misunderstanding. Ron did not say that Kofis opinion was equivalent to law, you need to get you some comprehension skills, as well as reading and honesty skills.
You are making a spurious argument, and you know you are.
In 2003, the governments of the U.S., Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it. [1] Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the U.S., Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.
Defiance. End of joke.
You ask for citation, of something that should be by now pretty fuckin regularly known, regarding this 'defiance'. You then go on to attribute some fucking something or another to me that certainly was not evidenced by fact or spin. It is called eliding, or strawman or whatever, unintended consequences conservative cognotive dissonance or that bias bullshit you like to post.
World Court? Don't fuckin make me laugh.
Dateline: 05/07/02
Through a letter to the U.N., the Bush administration has reserved the right of the U.S. to ignore decisions and orders issued by the International Criminal Court. The action effectively neutralizes President Clinton's signature to the treaty creating the court.
We left the World Court in 1986....
November 3 – Iran–Contra affair: The Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa reports that the United States has been selling weapons to Iran in secret, in order to secure the release of 7 American hostages held by pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon.
November 21 – Iran-Contra Affair: National Security Council member Oliver North and his secretary, Fawn Hall, start shredding documents implicating them in selling weapons to Iran and channeling the proceeds to help fund the Contra rebels in Nicaragua.
November 25 – Iran-Contra Affair: U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese announces that profits from covert weapons sales to Iran were illegally diverted to the anti-communist Contra rebels in Nicaragua.
November 26 – Iran-Contra Affair: U.S. President Ronald Reagan announces that as of December 1 former Senator John Tower, former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie, and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft will serve as members of the Special Review Board looking into the scandal (they became known as the Tower Commission). Reagan denies involvement in the scandal.
Although Kofi declares it illegal, your requisite proof was defiance.
How would I call it illegal, when chef does not do world law?
It was a very good year for appeasement, funding terrorism to set it up to come back and haunt us (but not his only bedtime for bonzo chapter during his administration) by the Sainted Wrinklemeat, and imperialism.
That's all.
|
|
|
|
