And by the way, i've never tried to make a connection or link between the 2. All I said is that there is valid evidence to support, just as there is evidence to the contrary.
--- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There isn't a single valid libertarian justification for the war in > Iraq or anything that would make it an act of defense. Any claims of > "connections" or "ties" between Iraq and Al Queda are utter nonsense. > > > > --- In [email protected], "wgilbert02" <buckygilbert@> wrote: > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > When the "reasoning behind that war" is that it is an enforcement > > > action pursuant to UN resolutions. > > > > Since when was the enforcement of UN resolutions the ONLY pretext for > > the war? > > > > > France has a veto on the UN Security Council, not in the UN general > > > assembly. And what of it anyway? The US has a UNSC veto as well. If > > > you set up an institution with a particular decisionmaking > > procedure, > > > the fact that that procedure may occasionally produce results other > > > than the ones you want isn't a reason for saying that the procedure > > is > > > invalid. > > > > The first sentence here is true. AND WHAT OF IT ANYWAY? Sir, it is > > up to the council itself, and not individual members or the general > > assembly, to determine how resolutions are to be ENFORCED, not if > > resolutions are passed. Thus, if every country in the UN had agreed > > it would not have mattered. Here are some of the countries that > > supported, in case you have forgotten: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, > > Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech > > Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, > > Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, > > Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Macedonia, Marshall Islands, > > Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, > > Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, > > South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, > > United States, and Uzbekistan > > > > I suppose, following your logic, if North Korea had missile silos > > aimed and ready to fire at the US and openly declared on such and > > such a day and time they would blast us, we should wait for the great > > UN to decide for us how we should defend ourselves. This is the > > exact logic many followed when they believed that the League of > > Nations could prevent WWII. > > > > I had issues with the war, both before and now, and won't pretend > > that I didn't. But its also not black and white as you and your ilk > > pretend. And I have never argued that the decision was invalid, > > because no decision was ever made on enforcement. The UN serves a > > valid purpose, but is severely flawed. Success of sorts in Korea and > > the Congo did boost its international image. However, many of the > > problems from the Cold War it could not stem. The effective > > occupation of Eastern Europe by Russia made a mockery of the promises > > made at Yalta and other war meetings. The treatment of Hungary in > > 1956 could not be stopped by the United Nations. Likewise, America's > > involvement in Vietnam could not be stopped. > > > > According to www.genocide.org, since the end of World War II and the > > founding of the United Nations, over 81 million people have been > > killed in racial, religious, and political genocides across the > > world. This number is 1350% greater than all those killed in the Nazi > > death camps. > > > > > > > > But now, instead of innocents dying under the swastika, they are > > perishing under the blue flag of the UN and its farcical peacekeeping > > missions. Just within the past few years hundreds of civilians where > > slaughtered in Srebrenica, Bosnia, within eyeshot of 600 Dutch UN > > peacekeepers who felt they were not authorized to interfere. > > > > And in Rwanda, millions were killed in ethnic cleansing campaigns > > conducted under the nose of another UN peacekeeping mission led by > > now UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. Just what does the UN > > think "preventing genocide" means? It is obvious that the United > > Nations has not only failed in its mission to prevent genocide, but > > has actually acted as its enabler, leading to the bloodiest 60 years > > in history. > > > > The United Nation's incompetence extends far beyond its peacekeeping > > missions. In the fight against starvation and disease, time and time > > again the UN has mismanaged and wasted hundreds of millions of > > dollars of aid on spurious projects that seem aimed more toward their > > personal aggrandizement and creature comforts than helping the > > suffering around the world. > > > > For example, in the 1980's, at the height of the Ethiopian famine, > > the UN spent over $75 million building and upgrading apartment > > complexes for UN administrators and aid workers in Ethiopia while > > food supplies rotted on the docks, unable to reach famine stricken > > areas due to a lack of transportation vehicles. And, more recently, > > in East Timor, the UN spent over $50 million to build hotels and > > supermarkets for foreign visitors while neglecting the development of > > much needed local infrastructure and hospitals. > > > > The UN acts like any other European Socialist bureaucracy. The > > bureaucrats arrogantly assume they know what is best for others at > > all times and any decision they make is correct for the simple reason > > that they made it. Above all else, the bureaucrats protect their own, > > accepting no responsibility for errors, and ensuring that all blame > > is placed outside of the organization. The end result is the UN being > > content to give starving people what the United Nations say they > > need, not what the people require. If people want food and medicine, > > they get a soccer stadium. If people want a democracy, they are given > > a UN generated bureaucracy. The people want freedom, they get the > > status quo. > > > > The problem with the United Nations is it wants all the power of a > > World Parliament but will assume none of the responsibility > > associated with such power. In effect, the goal of the UN is to > > dictate world peace on its terms, not facilitate it in a spirit of > > freedom and democracy. An international body dedicated to the debate > > of ideas and opening avenues of diplomacy is a wonderful idea, but it > > will never work so long as the international body feels no > > accountability to the sovereign nations which compose it or the > > people of the world it claims to protect. > > > > So please, don't attempt to lecture me on the role of the UN. > > > > William > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp" > > <thomaslknapp@> wrote: > > > > > > Quoth wgilbert02: > > > > > > > Geof, I wonder if everyone has also forgotten Ansar Al-Islam, the > > Al- > > > > Queda affiliate operating in Northern Iraq that tried to poison > > > > British water supplies a few years ago as well? > > > > > > No, I haven't forgotten about Ansar al-Islam, the al Qaeda affiliate > > > which operated in (Kurdish-controlled and under the protection from > > > Saddam of US aircraft) northern Iraq. > > > > > > > Since when does any sovereign country in the world need > > > > the permission of the UN to begin a war, irregardless of the > > > > reasoning behind that war? > > > > > > When the "reasoning behind that war" is that it is an enforcement > > > action pursuant to UN resolutions. > > > > > > > Furthermore, the US had more than enough > > > > votes within the UN to allow military assistance during the > > invasion, > > > > but France, who was one of the five countries with veto power, > > > > threatened to veto it, even if avery country in the UN was in > > support. > > > > > > France has a veto on the UN Security Council, not in the UN general > > > assembly. And what of it anyway? The US has a UNSC veto as well. If > > > you set up an institution with a particular decisionmaking > > procedure, > > > the fact that that procedure may occasionally produce results other > > > than the ones you want isn't a reason for saying that the procedure > > is > > > invalid. > > > > > > The US agreed to veto power for the WII Allied Powers on the UNSC, > > and > > > accepted veto power AS one of the WWII Allied Powers on the UNSC. > > Then > > > it brought the matter to the UN, not vice versa. > > > > > > Tom Knapp > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
