Sudan: a Third Front?

At any rate, welcome to A2K FreeDuck.

Idisagree that the US has weakened or emasculated the UN in any way.

At the same time, we can just about count on the UN voting against the US in a large majority of the cases.

While cooperation is always preferable to unilateralism, and opportunity for cooperation should always be on the table, I will not support any elected official who deems it necessary to get the approval and/or consent of the UN before doing what is best and right for and by the United States.

I don't think any sovereign nation should give over its right to use force in self defense unilaterally. However, it seems to me that the level of threat to our country from Iraq was not high enough to warrant it, though I'm guessing you feel otherwise.

As the International Criminal Court came into being on July 1, 2002, ratified by 90 nations, the United States took bold steps to undercut it, complaining that the new court would subject US nationals to a politically-motivated international justice. The US insisted that the Security Council adopt an omnibus resolution exempting all UN peacekeepers from the jurisdiction of the Court or, at least, that each new renewal of UN peacekeeping operations would include an exemption for that operation. A year later, the US insisted the resolution be renewed. In both cases the US threatened to veto all resolutions renewing peacekeeping operations unless the Council agreed to the new language. The move set off a firestorm of international protest and provoked strong opposition from most other nations. Security Council members stated that the Council should not be used to override international treaties and expressed shock that the US would be willing to wreck UN peacekeeping missions in order to demonstrate its objections to the Court.

The battle has wider significance than the jurisdiction of the ICC alone. It may prove a defining moment in the relations between the superpower and the rest of the international community. Even if the US "wins," and imposes its will, it will have created hostility and counter-alliances to challenge the domination of the US hegemon.

Free Duck, allow me to introduce you to Foxfyre. Slightly right of center with a deep theologistic understanding and a wonderful self-depracating wit. An enjoyable adversary in any debate.

FreeDuck writes:
Quote:
I don't think any sovereign nation should give over its right to use force in self defense unilaterally. However, it seems to me that the level of threat to our country from Iraq was not high enough to warrant it, though I'm guessing you feel otherwise.


Yeah I do as did most of the current adminstration, apparently most or all of the previous administration, and most of Congress.

FreeDuck

This is way off topic, but I just got to know...

Is it "Free" as in "free speech", or as in "free beer".

3rd possibilty: as in "Free Mandela"

I think if you look into it you might find that the administration only went to the UN to satisfy Congress, and only went to Congress to satisfy the UN. And that, in any case, they were determined to go to war.

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.
Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249|top|08-09-2004::17:46|reuters.html

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

I find it difficult to fault policies that refuse to consign us to an ugly childhood who is supposed to pay up and be seen, but not heard.

At what point does protecting your own interests at others' expense become wrong?

Now then, on what basis do you determine that the administration was determined to go to war without the consent of Congress? And where do you find a mandate from Congress that UN cooperation/support was required?

Lawyers for President Bush have concluded he can launch an attack on Iraq without new approval from Congress, in part because they say that permission remains in force from the 1991 resolution giving Bush's father authority to wage war in the Persian Gulf, according to administration officials.

Bush has said repeatedly he will consult lawmakers before deciding how to proceed but has pointedly stopped short of saying he will request their approval.

The resolution calls on Mr Bush to certify to Congress - either before a military strike or very shortly afterwards - that diplomatic and other peaceful means have failed.