Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (58217)	11/22/2002 10:22:19 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Wow. Must have been another hard night last night, zonder. Civility....remember civility.

To: zonder who wrote (58217)	11/23/2002 3:53:12 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You need to take a chill pill. I was quoting another poster So where are the quotation marks or the italics? I was careless but you gave me some help with it didn't you? I'm sorry about the misattribution. But I'm also kind of hot at you: Your post to me ( #58076 ) in which you state I probably have to be the one to tell you that you are in no position to judge the UN Charter . You are not a lawyer. You are not a scholar of international affairs. Your take on the UN Charter is a layman's understanding of a multinational agreement. Get it straight. You are a layman also. You quote some guy who is a lawyer specializing in international law. Fine, he's one lawyer and that's his opinion. There are lots of lawyers. My take on it is that you don't want to expend the rigor to deal with what I wrote and so you rely on an appeal to authority. That doesn't cut it in my circles. What I do is valid in this context whether or not I'm expert on the matter because, unlike you, (who, as far as I can see repeat what you've been told by the nearest to hand expert), I actually read and analyzed the thing. And, as I mentioned in the one time I reposted my analysis in a reply to someone because I thought it was apposite, (and so did she), that I expected someone (probably you) to tear it to shreds. Did I get that? Hell, no. I got this: That verbose post is your personal take on the UN Charter, going over where you think it is "reasonable" and where you think it is not. Meanwhile you reach some strange conclusions like "So the UN declared itself the world's policeman" and conclude that "The UN will die - deservedly...". Excuse me if I could not bring myself to reply to all that. Gosh darn, Zonder, you are sooooo fastidious. But since you wanted to play the authority game I answered ( #58133 ) that post of yours with a reference to another lawyer, of considerable reputation, who doesn't quite see things the way richardbt does but does say a couple of things remotely supportive of some of the things I got to. But you haven't answered that, have you? Maybe you missed it? Now, what remains is this. Some of us want to discuss a basic problem, which does have application to Iraq situation, and that is, genocde is done and the worst sort of tyranny exists contrary to the Purposes in the Charter of the foremost international organization, the UN. The UN has enormous difficulty dealing with these things. This difficulty negatively affects (indeed often ends), the lives of many people. And it also undermines the credibility of the UN with many countries and people. This is a serious problem. Some of us would like to explore it and we get no further with gratuitous remarks about our lack of 'expertise.' Our explorations are inexpert. The inexpertness might also lead to insights the experts may have missed - this is highly unlikely, but you never know. Not everyone who drops in here is inexpert. I'm the one doing the work here, not you.