Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

I would venture that massing such troops required their use, otherwise it would have been seen (in the minds (or whatever they have)) of the far right as "backing down." It certainly would have prevented the wonderful ratings for FOX and other media outlets.

An interesting citation coming from you, CI. Does this mean you've changed your mind? Here's the first paragraph of your citation:

Get that? Your citation notes that these "international law experts" found the notion that a US-led attack on Iraq would be illegal was "legally unsupported".

Thanks for the citation supporting my position. You really aren't half-bad, you know that?

I provide links I find that would help clarify either side of any argument. It doesn't mean I support the side of any link I post. That's for the readers to decide.

Scrat, ehem, did you really read your quotation?
And follow that link?

Funny, because my computer couldn't get the link to the article in "Age and the Sydney Morning Herald" - you are only quoting the objection!

And Walter scores again.
the score so far:
Walter 1.88x10^23
Scrat: 0

Congratulations scrat, you finally see the light

Here's another link. I make no judgement on this article.
************************
http://www.radanovich.house.gov/documents/CRSReportIraqInternationallaw.htm

Then you are to be lauded for your integrity and unbiased motives. (Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic here.)

Apparently, you still have not reread your own post scrat..........................

But, that said - there is no one anywhere at any time I would trust more than c.i.

Under the yuk yuk heading http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/20/politics/campaign/20BURM.html

It's a global economy.

Update on the Medicare actuary story... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/20/politics/20MEDI.html

You guys really must get rid of these lying bastards.

This story has begun to show some legs, but I don't know how far it can go. Numbers, that is the price of bills, are almost always wrong in one direction or another, especially on huge bills like Medicare, and the process of passing laws is never neat. (Don't let the children watch.)

The fun part for me is how universally pissed off everyone is about this : the liberals hate the law, the middle hates the law and conservatives, who had to both hold their nose and cover their ears to vote for it, really hate it. It's a perfect storm. (Do I say that a lot?)

Meanwhile, commercials showing W as the new Medicare stewart, produced not by his re=election committee but by Health and Human Services, are streaming out of various tv stations, much to the embarrassment of the fore-mentioned conservatives and the wrath of Democrats.

joe

Any single story such as this is pretty easy to overwhelm and cover up under a deluge of 'other' and 'new' news items. But the list of such deceits, so inimical to anything like respect for the citizenry or for democracy, is getting longer and longer - and the arrogant Pinnochio character of the administration more and more difficult to deny.

I'm still waiting for the results of the Robert Novak debacle. I'd love to see that sob Rove frog-marched out of the White House. I would.

Yes! That's a fine example of a story that gets somewhat (or entirely) submerged because of a clear intent it disappear, and because of the nature of modern media.

I think if there is one real contribution citizens can make is to do whatever we can to keep such issues alive (after getting knowledgeable about them, of course).

Nonsense. I aint no legal expert either, but I offered up a bunch of questions concerning your interpretation that you seem to be unable or unwilling to answer or address, instead opting to loudly cheer, "but I am clearly right! See, the words there clearly mean what I say they mean!" No, Scrat, you think they do.

Where in the resolution is it specified what means are necessary at what time? If it says "all necessary means" should be used to force Iraq to comply to the resolution, who decides what means are "necessary"? Why should it be anyone else but the authors of the resolution themselves who decide what is "necessary"? What would give a minority of one or two member states the right to spring into an action of their own choice by refering to a resolution which a majority of its authors says does not call for such action? If the resolution accords the UN's "Member States" to act, shouldnt it be the "Member States" to decide?

Can you imagine one or two members of the Supreme Court arguing that any judge that sympathises with them has the right to pass sentences according to their interpretation of the law - even when a majority of fellow Supreme Court justices has indicated they would never approve of said interpretation? Conservative judges around the US forbidding abortion because two anti-abortion Supreme Court justices says they can - refusing to bring the matter to their fellow justices, who would clearly judge their interpretation to be wrong?

It doesnt say "any one Member State" - it says "Member States". True, it doesnt say "the collective of Member States" either. But you claim common sense in your interpretation - as in, "everyone can see what the text clearly means". Well, I would say that common sense dictates that when a United Nations resolution authorizes its Member States to do what is necessary, it would be up to those Member States to do so and decide what is necessary - not to any one or two rogue members.

But if you can find any precedent - you seem to be quite eager to look into this, and quite convinced of your case - so if you can find a precedent for any UN resolution that effectively abdicates the authority on what action should follow in what way at what time to any random one or two member states, then please. It strikes me as highly unusual, not to say of totally counterinstinctual logic.

No, it doesn't, actually.

One - It notes that "a group of prominent lawyers and legal scholars" signed an article in the Sidney Morning Herald (for what its worth, "one of the most prestigious and important newspapers in Australia" according to Wikipedia), "arguing that any attack on Iraq led by the US would be illegal".

And then on the counterside, it proudly announces that one Professor, Michla Pomerance of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in an exclusive for the AIJAC's Israel & Jewish Affairs webzine, submits that the claims that group of prominent lawyers and legal scholars make are legally unsupported.

And of course, there's no reason why we should take the word of "a group of prominent lawyers and legal scholars" when we have an exclusive to the AIJAC webzine. I mean, just because the Director of the AIJAC tends to wax lyrically about Prime Minister Howard, who presided over Australia's support for the war, as someone who should be "honored" for proving to be "a true friend and ally of the United States", doesnt mean the AIJAC's webzine is any less the epitome of legal objectivity.

There are some very strange concepts of international law afoot here. I also find the careful parsing of just what "member states" means just a bit Medieval (or perhaps I should say Clintonian).

The United Nations is a voluntary organization. Not all states in the world are members, and states can withdraw at their discretion. The various prononcements of its organs are applicaple to its members only to the extent they agree and accept them. Nothing more. The UN General Assembly routinely enacts resolutions that, if they were widely published would likely cause popular movements to disband the UN in many Western States.

Sovereign nations, including France and Russia routinely ignore resolutions of the UN and take international initiatives without any regard for its pronouncements or pre approval.

As of 2004, the only "independent" country that is not a member of the United Nations is the Vatican (Holy See).

Could name
a) some of those resolutions
and
b) those Western States, where they would cause popular movement?

When you name France and Russia ignoring UN resolutions, you surely shouldn't forget the leaders in that "legue".