Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Garden Rose who wrote (217440)	2/10/2007 2:09:48 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) of 281500

That's an evasion and you know it. Let's start here: the UN did not exist in 1939, It was a post-WW2 creation. The League of Nations never had the power for such actions in any case. YOU are pushing the "illegal" concept, fella! I suggest you find the facts in the future before going on the offensive. Or are you taking notes from Slick, your hero? What was the number of the UN resolution authorizing Slick's invasion of Rwanda? Answer: there wasn't one. Why wasn't it "illegal"? Because he was of the "right" party? What was the number of the UN resolution authorizing Slick's invasion of Yugoslavia? Answer: there wasn't one. Why wasn't it "illegal"? Because he was of the "right" party? What was the number of the UN resolution authorizing Carter's invasion of Iran? Answer: there wasn't one. Why wasn't it "illegal"? Because he was of the "right" party? I eagerly await your answers. Since we're on the subject, what was the number of the UN resolution authorizing Reagan's invasion of Panama? Answer: there wasn't one. In fact the UN condemned the Panama invasion krysstal.com Seems to cross party lines, doesn't it? Maybe there's something to the thesis that the UN is irrelevant.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next