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: jlallen who wrote (155438)	1/7/2005 8:16:24 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

We went to the UN, we argued the legality of our actions on the basis of UN resolutions, we enlisted UN members as part of a coalition, in general we genuflected efore "multilateralism", at least. One can call it "lip service", but I think the argument that we had the right to move was good. However, in a deeper sense, we do, in fact, reserve the right to move on the basis of our own assessment of our security interests, without requiring the permission of others. Even Kerry acknowledged that. So "unilateralism" is, in a sense, at the core of our foreign policy as a matter of constitutional law, which subordinates treaties to the law of the land, and requires only simple statute to modify or abrogate them.