in the other. We are signatories on the United Nations Charter which is a
constitution of international law. It is a treaty to which all signatories
are legally bound.
I know we like to say that the U.N. has no control over the U.S., but when
the US signed that treaty we agreed to be held to that body's laws.
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Heald, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> The U.N. has no regulatory control over the United States.
>
> We are a sovereign nation.
>
> Hence not illegal.
>
> --
> Timothy Heald
> Web Portfolio Manager
> Overseas Security Advisory Council
> U.S. Department of State
> 571.345.2319
>
> The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
> Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
> opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail
is
> unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:56 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush gives the finger to the world again
>
>
> The UN resolution basically said that if Iraq didn't cooperate with
> dismantelling their WMD that we could attack. However, Iraq couldn't
> dismantel what they didn't have. So we trumped up evidence to show that
they
> did. Hence the illegal.
>
> -Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Heald, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:42 AM
> Subject: RE: Bush gives the finger to the world again
>
> > Tell me again how the war was illegal?
> >
> > The United Nations holds no mandate over our actions. We are still a
> > sovereign nation capable of acting unilaterally.
> >
> > You might not have thought it was a good idea, but that doesn't make it
> > illegal. Now I would be forced to agree that it was unconstitutional
> (read
> > illegal) as war was never formally declared, but for some reason we no
> > longer feel bound by the constitution in this country. As most
mainstream
> > people, both left and right, believe that the constitution is a living,
> > interpreted document, you shouldn't complain about that too loudly. If
we
> > want to strictly follow one section of the constitution, than all need
be
> > applied equally (Firearms laws, private property, gov't only getting
> > involved in those things that are specifically mentioned in the
> > constitution).
> >
> > Additionally why should we support the economies of nations that in
effect
> > cost lives of American soldiers? These supposed allies (whose defense
we
> > have bled for time and again) refused to take part in the fighting, and
> have
> > continued to take part in the reconstruction unless we met their
demands.
> > They don't deserve our money, and make no mistake, this is our money.
> >
> > I can't agree Kevin. We are doing nothing wrong here. We may have
erred
> in
> > invading. I am sure we have made many mistakes during the occupation.
> Yet
> > we're still trying to do the right thing there, and the people that
> wouldn't
> > stand with us during the tough part shouldn't profit now that there is
> money
> > to be made.
> >
> > --
> > Timothy Heald
> > Web Portfolio Manager
> > Overseas Security Advisory Council
> > U.S. Department of State
> > 571.345.2319
> >
> > The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
> > Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
> > opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail
> is
> > unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:29 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> >
> >
> > Former top U.S. officials are blasting the Bush administration for
> reopening
> > a rift with Europe by excluding critics of the war from prime contracts
> for
> > Iraq's reconstruction.
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>
> > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>
> >
> > "I thought we were in the process of acquiring support rather than
> > alienating it," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (search)
> said.
> >
> > So let me get this straight.
> >
> > 1. Economy is bad.
> > 2. Find a patsy country and accuse them of something unfounded.
> > 3. Get called on it by other countries.
> > 4. Attack anyway
> > 5. Deny reconstruction contracts to countries that wouldn't help in an
> > illegal war.
> >
> > And people are complaining? I don't get it. It looks like a perfect plan
> to
> > boost the economy by giving local companies big contracts.
> >
> > -Kevin
> > _____
> >
> >
> >
> _____
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
