The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe
or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and
consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them,
in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised
by Article 51 of the Charter
<http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/bt-un51.htm> of the United Nations, will
assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually
and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary,
including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of
the North Atlantic area.
Article 51 of the UN charter says:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the
United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain inter- national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in
the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to
the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and
responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at
any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore
international peace and security.
So what's your argument? How do this negatively impact what we did? The
argument for self-defense can be made. Not attack took place on European
soil, so there was no question that France didn't HAVE to participate.
I am kind of at a loss?
--
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 12:17 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Bush gives the finger to the world again
Hey man, good to have you back. I knew all the talk about computers and sex
was keeping you away. :-)
So what do you think about Article V of NATO? Does that apply to us or not?
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Heald, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:45 AM
Subject: RE: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> Wrong answer brother. We didn't agree to be bound by it, and congress
made
> sure of it.
>
> Not to mention anything Mr.. Hiss was responsible for should be overturned
> as he was convicted of being a communist spy.
>
> The debate about even taking part in the U.N. back then was such that the
> U.S. allowed in no actual regulatory control over us. It is their to
> facilitate communication, and when necessary to form alliances to bring
> pariah nations back into the fold through force.
>
> We are NOT members of a one world government.
>
> --
> 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 11:44 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 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
> > 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>
> > <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]
