America... Spying on Americans

1, it isn't our place to allow or disallow another country to do anything that does not violate international laws. If they are in violation of international laws (and you are willing to hold the US and Israel responsible for their violations as well, btw), then the UN should take action against them.

and

2, yes (for power-generation purposes).

Basically, it sounds like your answer is: "Yes ... unless the international community says we shouldn't."

So, in effect you suggest we should remain hostage to the whims of Russia and China concerning this issue. That certainly sounds a lot like the approach Kerry promoted, and one of the many reasons he's not in the White House today.

I do not believe that is the course of action this country should, or will, take.

CHAPTER I
PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. . . .

This advocacy reflects the emerging doctrine of those in the Bushco camp that Bushco may violate any laws that the governing power desires to violate in the fear-mongering and war-mongering name of "national security." The American people are growing unhappy with this fear- and war-mongering rhetoric by a political party that supports a maniac in the White House while our country is becoming LESS safe rather than MORE safe under his leadership. That is why the Republican party is likely to lose congressional seats in the next election.

However, Tico is advocating that the rest of the world ought to be held hostage to the whims (and fear-mongering) of the United States.

Deb was merely re-stating your argument with what you really meant, Tico. It shouldn't be a problem with you at all.

Cycloptichorn

Go back and read my last two posts if you are somehow confused.

Cycloptichorn

Tico has NEVER yet explained how action taken by the United Nations against a country for violating international law means the same thing as being held hostage to the whims of Russia and China.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Go back and read my last two posts if you are somehow confused.

Cycloptichorn

I'm not.

Tico has NEVER yet explained how action taken by the United Nations against a country for violating international law means the same thing as being held hostage to the whims of Russia and China.

Debra_Law wrote:

Tico has NEVER yet explained how action taken by the United Nations against a country for violating international law means the same thing as being held hostage to the whims of Russia and China.

I never said, "action taken by the United Nations against a country for violating international law means the same thing as being held hostage to the whims of Russia and China."

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

Tico has NEVER yet explained how action taken by the United Nations against a country for violating international law means the same thing as being held hostage to the whims of Russia and China.

I never said, "action taken by the United Nations against a country for violating international law means the same thing as being held hostage to the whims of Russia and China."

****

Tico's argument: When you say or suggest, if Iran is violating international law, then the U.N. should take action against Iran, that means you are saying or suggesting, yes, we should allow Iran to have nuclear weapons if the international community says we should, which means you are saying or suggesting that we should be held hostage to the whims of Russia and China.

Cyclops: You have twisted my words to invent a straw man argument.

Tico: No I haven't, I summarized your argument to mean exactly what you said.

****

Explain to us again how Cyclops said or suggested that we should be held hostage to the whims of Russia and China. Please explain, step by step, how you reached that conclusion without engaging in a dishonest debate through the invention of a straw man.

Cyclops asserts we are required to abide by whatever the UN tells us we can do with regard to Iran.

Quote:

Cyclops asserts we are required to abide by whatever the UN tells us we can do with regard to Iran.

It only took you one sentence to screw my argument up. We are not required to do what the UN tells us to do, and I never stated that we were.

Try again!

Cycloptichorn