At 13:01 19-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote:
And guess what, JDG *again*, for the THIRD time, refuses to answer the question. John, what does it take to get you to provide an answer to that question? Do I have to *beg* you first? Bribe you? Hold a gun to your head? WHAT? Why is it seemingly impossible for you to answer the question of why countries would insist on UN support if they consider the UN to be a discredited body? (And yes, you may consider that the *fourth* time of asking the question.)>Incredible. I ask the same question *twice*, and both times you evade it. >So, third attempt, why would countries insist on UN support if they >consider the UN to be a discredited body?
I am trying over and over again to better understand your position, but that is not going to work if you keep refusing to answer questions that would help in better understanding your position.
Obviously, you are.>BTW, may I ask why you keep insulting Europeans by implying that they are >somehow intellectually inferior to Americans?You are the one who keeps arguing that Europeans continue to insist upon the support of a discredited body. I, however, argue that the Europeans simply do not know that it is discredited. Who, then, is insulting Europeans?
I have never said that Europeans insist upon the support of a discredited body; I have said that countries (not only European ones) insist upon UN support. It is you, not me, who keeps claiming that the UN is a discredited body. You are the one that implies that Europeans are too stupid to know that the UN is a discredited body. So, it is quite obvious that you are the one insulting Europeans.
True, but I was commenting on your statement about leaving matters of US *national* security to the Chinese and the French:>First, the UNSC deals with matters of *international* security, not a >country's national security. The dispute between Iraq and the US seems to meet the definition of "international security" dispute.
Or maybe the Europeans are more comfortable than Americans with referring matters of National Security to the Chinese who are arming one's enemies, a state-sponsor of terrorism, and the French who are willing to sell WMD technology to one's enemies.
When it comes to defending US soil, other countries have no say in it, as it is an internal matter. If the US believe that Iraq is a threat to US national security, then it should take steps internally to defend itself, such as trying to find and arrest terrorists within the US before they get a chance to do damage. If the US want to take steps against Iraq *outside* America's national borders, then it becomes by definition a matter of international security.>A country's national security is its own responsibility; other countries >have no say in it. So, do you agree, then, that if the US determines that Iraq is adversely affecting its "national security", then, quote "other countries have no say in it?"
Nice try, John, but you need to do a lot better than that if you want to lure me into saying that the rest of the world should let the US attack Iraq without UN approval.
Yes. I have heard of several cases where the US used that power to get in the way of the international community.>Second, even in matters of international security, neither the Chinese nor >the French have the power to make decisions about that, contrary to what you are implying. They are *members* of the UNSC, but one country's will is not >law -- decisions are made by *all* members of the UNSC. Jeroen, are you aware that some conutries have a veto power in the UN Security Council?
That, however, is not my point. You were making two totally wrong suggestions. You implied that other UNSC members could make decisions about the national security of the US, and that certain members of the UNSC could unilaterally make a decision which would then automatically be an UNSC decision.
It is by definition impossible to use veto power to turn a UNSC Proposal into an agreed-upon Resolution; it can only be used to *prevent* the Proposal from becoming an agreed-upon Resolution.
Also, are you aware that the UNSC makes decisions on the basis of the agreement of 9 out of 15 members, provided that all 5 permanent members assent to the decision? Finally, on the basis of this information, would you like to revise the above quotes?
As there is no reason to revise my statements, I am not going to revise them. Jeroen "Get your facts straight" van Baardwijk __________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
