I believe we've made our points, no sense beating a dead horse. Interesting, this group discussion dynamic though.
Now would be a good time to post an interesting article, but since I've used up my two today, I'll just post a shortened version.
Nice talking to you John, take Care, I've got a Racketball slamfest to play and a hot tub ease my wounds waiting for me. :)
Iraq and international law
washtimes.com
While it would certainly be preferable to have the U.N. Security Council endorse U.S.-led military action to eliminate the threat posed by Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction, it's clear that, barring a miracle, such support will not be forthcoming due to the disgraceful intransigence of France. But, it's important to remember that, contrary to the assertions of his critics, when President Bush gives the order for U.S. military strikes against Iraq, he will hardly be "violating international law." Indeed, precisely the opposite is true. When the "coalition of the willing" moves to disarm Saddam Hussein, it will be taking action to enforce Security Council resolutions enacted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which are supposed to constitute the very backbone of international law. </I |
