Bush Regime Kills 400k

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
orion wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Can anyone give me a good reason for the US to remain a member of the united nations? I’d like someone to tell me how the US benefits from membership in the UN.

What do you mean by the US?

The federal government?

The industrial-military complex?

The sum of all states?

The people of the US?

Care to expound on this rather ambiguous post?

I was hoping for a response with reasoning for the benefits to the United States being a member of the united nations. As of right now, I don’t see the benefit.

Why shouldn’t the US pull out ASAP?

[/quote]

It kind of, somehow, sometimes, slows the Leviathan that is the US federal government.

=> UN is good for the American people.

It kind of, somehow, sometimes, slows the Leviathan that is the US federal government.

=> UN is bad for the industrial-military complex.

It kind of, somehow, sometimes, slows the Leviathan that is the US federal government.

=> UN is bad for the US federal government.

It kind of, somehow, sometimes, slows the Leviathan that is the US federal government.

=> UN may be good for the US member states.

Why shouldn’t the US pull out ASAP?

Because the US constitution and the Bill of Rights are no longer able to protect you.

Better hope for as many masters as possible who cannot make up their minds, if your fate is to be a servant anyway.

42

The UN protects nothing. The UN is a costly joke.

43

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Nope. Still not seeing it. Exactly where does it specifically mandate that a UN member MUST have permission to use it’s own war powers. I see guidelines for members to take conflicts up through the security council. But, I see nothing legally binding any UN member to surrender war powers solely to the UN.

I do know what you mean, but I have no idea how to transfer my German legal lingo into English…

Usually it is seen as a given that those articles are enough especially considering the pre-amble to the UN charta stating that he UN was founded with the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of preventing wars.

If you read those two paragraphs in that light and it still does not spell “do not start an offensive war” for you I do not know how to help yu.

You attempted to point out how the UN charter makes it illegal for a member nation to use it’s OWN given war powers. You’ve yet to demonstrate how the UN charter makes this ILLEGAL.

As you can see in the UN charta there is a whole process to deal with inter-state poblems.

The US are supposed to follow that procedure.

If you do not and start a war instead, you have violated the treaty, which is international law, because, basically, pacta sunt servanda.

If the law tells you to turn left and you turn right, what you are doing is illegal.

You could also argue with me why you are not allowed to dump your toxic waste into a river just because the law might only positively state how to dispose of it but that is just being willfully simpleminded.[/quote]

Nope. You’re not getting out of your claim so easily. Your charter instructs on how member nations can use the UN process. It does NOT in any way strip any member of it’s war powers. Quote the passage that gives only the UN the right to declare a war. The UN does not claim itself as the sole bearer of war powers. So, why are trying to make this claim for them?

44

[quote]orion wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
orion wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Can anyone give me a good reason for the US to remain a member of the united nations? I’d like someone to tell me how the US benefits from membership in the UN.

What do you mean by the US?

The federal government?

The industrial-military complex?

The sum of all states?

The people of the US?

Care to expound on this rather ambiguous post?

I was hoping for a response with reasoning for the benefits to the United States being a member of the united nations. As of right now, I don’t see the benefit.

Why shouldn’t the US pull out ASAP?

It kind of, somehow, sometimes, slows the Leviathan that is the US federal government.

=> UN is good for the American people.

It kind of, somehow, sometimes, slows the Leviathan that is the US federal government.

=> UN is bad for the industrial-military complex.

It kind of, somehow, sometimes, slows the Leviathan that is the US federal government.

=> UN is bad for the US federal government.

It kind of, somehow, sometimes, slows the Leviathan that is the US federal government.

=> UN may be good for the US member states.[/quote]

You’re joking, right?

Are you seriously suggesting that the US should remain a member of that defunct, impotent, corrupt orginization because it opposes the US federal government on many issues? WTF!

As a conservative, I am concerned with the fact that power is being shifted centrally from the states to the federal government. However, I can tell you that the united nothing is most definitely not the answer for the US.

Damn, the next thing you’ll be blathering about is the benefit of a “world government”

[quote]
Why shouldn’t the US pull out ASAP?

Because the US constitution and the Bill of Rights are no longer able to protect you.[/quote]

And you expect that the UN can do this for me? Good grief!

[quote]
Better hope for as many masters as possible who cannot make up their minds, if your fate is to be a servant anyway.[/quote]

I can’t figure out if this post is defeatist, or pessimistic. It is definitely European however.

45

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Nope. You’re not getting out of your claim so easily. Your charter instructs on how member nations can use the UN process. It does NOT in any way strip any member of it’s war powers. Quote the passage that gives only the UN the right to declare a war. The UN does not claim itself as the sole bearer of war powers. So, why are trying to make this claim for them? [/quote]

You might want to look into this:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011707A.shtml

Especially this:

" Lawyers for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada planned to argue at the Feb. 5 trial that the war was illegal because it violated Army regulations that wars must be waged in accordance with the United Nations charter."

46

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Nope. You’re not getting out of your claim so easily. Your charter instructs on how member nations can use the UN process. It does NOT in any way strip any member of it’s war powers. Quote the passage that gives only the UN the right to declare a war. The UN does not claim itself as the sole bearer of war powers. So, why are trying to make this claim for them?

You might want to look into this:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011707A.shtml

Especially this:

" Lawyers for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada planned to argue at the Feb. 5 trial that the war was illegal because it violated Army regulations that wars must be waged in accordance with the United Nations charter."[/quote]

Sure, they’re going to TRY to make that case. However, it’s for the sole purpose of getting Watada off the hook. It’s not going to happen. Watada lives under US law, not the UN’s. Second, the US did not lose it’s constitutionally mandated powers to wage war. No member nation did.

47

By the way, that’s an absolutely horrible website to use as a source. Most people aren’t going to take you seriously if you’re posting 9-11 conspiracy sites as sources.

48

[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, that’s an absolutely horrible website to use as a source. Most people aren’t going to take you seriously if you’re posting 9-11 conspiracy sites as sources.[/quote]

OH question the impossible!

49

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Nope. You’re not getting out of your claim so easily. Your charter instructs on how member nations can use the UN process. It does NOT in any way strip any member of it’s war powers. Quote the passage that gives only the UN the right to declare a war. The UN does not claim itself as the sole bearer of war powers. So, why are trying to make this claim for them?

You might want to look into this:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011707A.shtml

Especially this:

" Lawyers for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada planned to argue at the Feb. 5 trial that the war was illegal because it violated Army regulations that wars must be waged in accordance with the United Nations charter."

Sure, they’re going to TRY to make that case. However, it’s for the sole purpose of getting Watada off the hook. It’s not going to happen. Watada lives under US law, not the UN’s. Second, the US did not lose it’s constitutionally mandated powers to wage war. No member nation did. [/quote]

The UN charta IS US law.

And no, no member nation has the right to start a war.

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war.

It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, U.S. Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, “Statement by Justice Jackson on War Trials Agreement,” August 12, 1945 (Department of State Bulletin)

http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqLetter.htm

What can I say, you are wrong.

Full-exhaustive-no-holds-barred-law fest:

http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf