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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (17426)	5/31/2005 10:27:48 PM
From: tsigprofit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

Who said I always agree with the Democrats? They often fail to stand up to Bush and the Republicans, because they are afraid of being called weak or unpatriotic. That's how the fascists get to do as they wish. Yes - the UN did not authorize it. It was illegal. It doesn't matter what our Congress authorized, they are supposed to work with the world body we helped to create. We can't just attack anyone we like man. We pushed to create the UN. Now we just do whatever the hell we like, like wild men (well Bush and Rummy do have a wild look in their eye - see my previous post where I prove that Bush cannot walk upright without appearing to have a stick up his butt...but I digress...) >> The UN did not authorize the war. Your opinion is that it is therefore illegal. However, our Congress overwhelmingly approved the war

To: Brumar89 who wrote (17426)	6/1/2005 7:00:49 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20773

The UN did not authorize the war. Your opinion is that it is therefore illegal. However, our Congress overwhelmingly approved the war - including the vast majority of Democratic Congressmen. We are a sovereign nation and don't need the UN's permission. Being sovereign has little to do with whether going to war is legal or illegal under international law. Perhaps you recall that the United States signed the UN Charter. [Rumour has it that we might have had something to do with drafting it.] It's supposed to mean something when the United States signs something; perhaps you disagree. But there are several sections in the UN Charter that apply to waging a legal war. See the UN Charter, beginning with Article 2(4); then there are the exceptions, Article 51, and finally Chapter VII. Chapter VII provides for the Security Council to authorize military action. That's the basis for international law and the legality of war. If you happen to hold the position that the signature of the US to the UN Charter doesn't mean squat, then you have an argument that the US conducts legal wars when Congress approves them. And if no sovereign country is legally bound by their approval of the UN Charter, then there are no illegal wars. Hope you're pleased that there are no longer any illegal wars. I would advise you to google up a link to UN Charter and read it. jttmab