like?
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Ousterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:13 AM
Subject: RE: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> Kevin,
>
> If what we did was illegal, why didn't France/Germany take us to court?
>
> Andy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:35 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Bush gives the finger to the world again
>
>
> Semantics. International law vs. domestic law. Illegal in one, possibly
not
> 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
> 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
> > 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]
