RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why?

RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/27/2012 6:56:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic FR Well, this is a fine bit of lawyering and case making you all have gotten up to in here. There is one little problem though. I'd have brought it up sooner, but everyone seemed to be having so much fun. It ain't the case the President went with. They invented the remote control exception, and that is the precedent all the currently cheering Obamabots are going to have to live with, when a Republican holds the office again, and they suddenly rediscover their peacenik values. Well, that is the naysayer side mostly. It was a nato deal and there is no exception for 'remote control'. That would be like you saying you have (as a man) an exception from having babies. It clearly does not apply, as the war powers does not apply to libya, since no troops were there. However, if we consider the thread here, its a fuck Libya anyway, since this is about Uganda and the hundred advisors there, and that is clearly an EXCEPTION to the applicability of the war powers act and stated wtihin it as I have pointed out repeatedly to the ignorers of that particularly lame piece of legislation.

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/27/2012 7:22:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic FR Well, this is a fine bit of lawyering and case making you all have gotten up to in here. There is one little problem though. I'd have brought it up sooner, but everyone seemed to be having so much fun. It ain't the case the President went with. They invented the remote control exception, and that is the precedent all the currently cheering Obamabots are going to have to live with, when a Republican holds the office again, and they suddenly rediscover their peacenik values. Couldn't help yourself I see. So back on topic, why exactly was a drug dealer in charge in Panama a bigger threat to the US than Qaddafi taking into account that Qaddafi actually attacked US citizens on several occasions and tried to finance a program of terror attacks inside the US?

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/27/2012 8:53:33 AM)
Oh you mean Article 2, the Section 7 that you quoted. Sorry I thought you meant some other Article or section that actually made your point. You see, if you actually read all of that section you'll find that you are wrong. Here's the actual text: quote: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. Please note that the principle you're hanging your argument on (namely "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state ") is qualified. The qualification follows immediately after the section you paid attention to, it reads "*but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll." So we have to go to Chapter VII to see what the rules are regarding enforcement measures. The first thing in Chapter VII is Article 39, which reads quote:* The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. Read that carefully, The Security Council is the body authorized to determine what situations are subject to intervention, and according to the section of Article 2 you are basing your claim on, Article 39 overrides the principles in Article 2. And there is nothing further that limits what the Security Council can act on, in fact , as I've already shown, the Charter makes it very clear that the Security Council can look into and act on just about any situation as long as it has the potential to result in a dispute or disruption of the peace, Article 39 itself makes that quite clear by using the phrase "any threat to the peace". Everything you have posted so far has only served to reinforce what I said in my original post on this thread, namely that the whole argument is just the result of being misguided and ill-informed. You, Sir, are the poster boy for ill-informed. Are you tired of being shown you're wrong yet? If not, go ahead and try find something else, I'll be glad to dismantle whatever "argument" you care to present.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/27/2012 1:30:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook Everything you have posted so far has only served to reinforce what I said in my original post on this thread, namely that the whole argument is just the result of being misguided and ill-informed. You, Sir, are the poster boy for ill-informed. Are you tired of being shown you're wrong yet? If not, go ahead and try find something else, I'll be glad to dismantle whatever "argument" you care to present. Yep, I'm the one who is making the personal derogatory comments. <Laughing my ass off> Would it be possible for the UN to determine that something in our Constitution could result in international friction? Is it possible that not allowing Alaska itself to make a pact with Russia, Canada, or China for drilling in ANWR results in international friction or an international dispute? So, essentially, the UN Security Council could authorize an invasion into any country. That's greeaat. I see we actually have had our One World Government. Can you not see how this isn't going to lead to anything good? I mean, seriously?

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/27/2012 8:08:20 PM)
Yes, legally the UN Security Council could decide to investigate any situation, and if it was determined that the situation was likely to lead to international strife or a threat to peace, then they could issue a resolution with regards to it, and if they also had tried (or determined there was no point trying) to resolve the situation peacefully, then they could call on member nations to remedy the situation with armed force. That is the purpose of the UN, that is what the US set it up to do. So yes, in theory the UN could intervene in any internal US dispute, but it can't in practice. That's what the vetoes are for. And yes it is a form of your dreaded One World Government, a very weak one, but that is exactly what it is supposed to be, that was the idea behind it. And as far as it not leading to anything good, well its been around for over 70 years and hasn't managed to do too much damage, and you might want to consider UNESCO, UNHCR, UNDP, UNICEF, etc. you may want to revise your assessment.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/28/2012 10:14:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook Yes, legally the UN Security Council could decide to investigate any situation, and if it was determined that the situation was likely to lead to international strife or a threat to peace, then they could issue a resolution with regards to it, and if they also had tried (or determined there was no point trying) to resolve the situation peacefully, then they could call on member nations to remedy the situation with armed force. That is the purpose of the UN, that is what the US set it up to do. So yes, in theory the UN could intervene in any internal US dispute, but it can't in practice. That's what the vetoes are for. Or, you might want to revise your "veto" comments. quote: ARTICLE 27 [1]Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote. [2]Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members. [3]Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. Gee, seems like if the US is involved in a "dispute" would have to abstain from the vote. You see, LoreBook, the reason a "One World Government" is dreaded is because communism hasn't worked too well. It has failed. It has failed its people. China has embraced many Capitalist actions, which has resulted in it's rampant economic expansion.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/29/2012 1:04:43 PM)
Your right about the way the veto works. That will teach me to not double check things, but its not really that important. You see, on paper and in theory you're correct, however, the US is not the only country with a veto, and since of the 4 remaining permanent members, 2 are very close allies (one so close as to almost be the same country for the purposes of international affairs), and the other 2 are heavily reliant on the US for their economic survival, the odds of such a thing happening are so slim as to be negligible. The UK is pretty much guaranteed to veto any such resolution, and if they didn't France and/or Russia would, and China, with its deep penetration of the US economy would be very likely to as well. So outside of whacko paranoid conspiracy circles its not worth worrying about. Remember, also, that it is a multistage process, not a one-shot vote. - First the SC must agree to look into the situation. - Second they have to decide that it qualifies for any sort of action (Article 34) - Third they have to either try peaceful methods (Articles 33, 37, 40, 41) or decide there is no point in trying them (Article 42). - Then, and only then they can make the resolution to authorize armed intervention. At each of those 4 stages they have to have the concurrence of the permanent members (4 in your scenario) and 5 other nations. Hardly a likely scenario, seeing as it involves the UK, France, Russia, and China all agreeing to go to war with the US, a situation which would imply a world crisis of a magnitude that renders the UN irrelevant anyway. quote: You see, LoreBook, the reason a "One World Government" is dreaded is because communism hasn't worked too well. It has failed. It has failed its people. China has embraced many Capitalist actions, which has resulted in it's rampant economic expansion. What does One World Government have to do with communism? The two are not synonymous. Your thinking is stuck in the past. In fact it is capitalism (in the form of multinational corporations and the international banking/financial system) that has come closer to realizing a single global government than anything else in history.

Page: << < prev 10 11 12 13 [14]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875