Paul,

I was only joking about the dope and koolade.  

The U.S. military has one and only one purpose and that is to defend
> AMERICA from direct attacks and to do nothing else.  It's not here 
to
> enforce UN resolutions, it's not here to overthrow dictators in
> foreign nations, it's not here to "liberate" oppressed people 
abroad,
> it's not here to practice "peace keeping" or "humanitarian aid"
> missions, it's not here to defend nations other than our own, it's 
not
> here to settle disputes among other nations, it's not here to train
> the military of other nations, it's not here to do anything other 
than
> to respond when we are directly attacked and never to start wars 
with
> any nation that has not directly attacked ours and never go to war
> unless a declaration of war has been made by Congress.
> 


And with this, I am in complete agreement.

William

--- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't smoke dope, I don't drink "koolade", and I don't pretend.  
> 
> America was never in danger from Iraq during the entire recorded
> history of the planet earth, and there was NEVER any connection
> between Iraq and Al Queda, and any documents "discovered" now, have
> absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
> 
> Nothing the UN did or said was justification for invading Iraq. 
> Neither the U.S., nor any other nation on earth takes orders from 
the
> UN.  The U.S. Military does not answer to the UN.
> 
> The U.S. military has one and only one purpose and that is to defend
> AMERICA from direct attacks and to do nothing else.  It's not here 
to
> enforce UN resolutions, it's not here to overthrow dictators in
> foreign nations, it's not here to "liberate" oppressed people 
abroad,
> it's not here to practice "peace keeping" or "humanitarian aid"
> missions, it's not here to defend nations other than our own, it's 
not
> here to settle disputes among other nations, it's not here to train
> the military of other nations, it's not here to do anything other 
than
> to respond when we are directly attacked and never to start wars 
with
> any nation that has not directly attacked ours and never go to war
> unless a declaration of war has been made by Congress.
> 
> I would accept your apology for wasting our time with your pathetic
> nonsense, but I doubt you really meant it.  
> 
> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], "wgilbert02" <buckygilbert@> 
wrote:
> >
> > If this all you have to say after the nonsense you posted in here 
and 
> > my rebuttal, then i want to apologize to you and the group for 
> > wasting time and space even trying to have an educated 
conversation 
> > with you.  Please, go smoke some more dope, drink some koolade, 
and 
> > pretend its all ok.  "Peace at any cost," right Paul?  LOL
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> 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/
 



Reply via email to