This is true Zeb, but we have abstained on numerous occasions in the Security Council. Just as important, there have been measures, in particular, Resolution 242 and 343, that we did not hold Israel's feet to the fire, (e.g.; the creation of a Palestinian State) that have not come to pass.
With regard to the Nicaraguan matter, these were not Resolutions, but decisions from the World Court which we ignored and/or did not comply with. I am not suggesting that we should have complied with these measures, by example, the ruling by the Hague regarding the prosecution of individuals that could have potentially encompassed members of our military, was just flat out wrong, and all Americans should have/would have been up in arms had our government agreed to such stipulations, (or at least thinking Americans I should say)...... My only point is that we do pick and choose what UN directives we are going to follow, and rightfully so. On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > We have no need to ignore UN resolutions. We are one of five permanent > members of the UN Security Council. > > From Wikipedia: > > The United Nations Security Council 'power of veto' refers to the veto > power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United > Nations Security Council,[1] enabling them to prevent the adoption of > any 'substantive' draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of > international support for the draft. > > On Jul 13, 11:50 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > As much as I hate to admit it, Holly is correct on this one. The list is > > endless.....We could start by the thousands of U.N. Resolutions which > both > > Israel and the United States have ignored; (Resolution 242 and 343 being > the > > most glaring examples!!); and Mark loves to bring up those little U.N. > > ditties from the early to mid 1980s centering around Nicaragua....About > ten > > years ago, we pretty much told the U.N. to stick it when it came to the > > World Court and the potential prosecution of American servicemen, (I > forget > > the actual resolution number) > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Such as? > > > > > On Jul 12, 10:28 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > chiro, > > > > > > Oh please, we happily ignore any U.N. resolution we find inconvient. > > > > > > On Jul 12, 9:25 am, chirpinginnc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The Iraq war. There was no resolution to use force as is REQUIRED. > > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > Wrong. Why do people continue to repeat this lie years later when > > > > > they've been provided with the resolution again and again? Do they > > > > > think that if they say it often enough it will become true? > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 4:14 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > The Iraq war. There was no resolution to use force as is > REQUIRED. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:28 PM, dick thompson < > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Examples?? And don't try to pull Kyoto because that was never > > > approved by > > > > > > > the Senate and the last Geneva Accord was not approved either. > > > > > > > > > THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bush did not implement treaties he broke them without > Congressional > > > > > > > approval. > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 11:55 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > How is this like what Bush did. Bush did not implement a > treaty > > > without > > > > > > > the approval of the Senate first. That is what Obama is trying > to > > > do. > > > > > > > Suppose he implements it and the Senate votes it down. Then > what > > > happens. > > > > > > > > > Frederick The Moderate wrote: > > > > > > > > > It seems the Dems are now doing exactly what Bush did - except > it's > > > > > > > the GOP who's compaining this time. Now if Obama starts telling > us > > > how > > > > > > > "We absolutely must do this right away or they will blow us all > up > > > > > > > with WMDs!", he will have completed his journey to the Dark > Side of > > > > > > > the Force. > > > > > > > > > I don't like the smell of it but will wait to see if they > actually > > > try > > > > > > > it, before getting to rattled... > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 9:14 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sounds right to me. I don't see where the president can just > make > > > the > > > > > > > treaty without the consent of the US Senate. If I remember > right > > > it > > > > > > > takes both of them to approve the treaties. It is not really a > > > done > > > > > > > deal if the president signs it unless the senate also approves > it. > > > > > > > Guess they forgot that one. Of course they also tried to > forget > > > that > > > > > > > when it came to Kyoto for a while as the Dems tried to force > the US > > > to > > > > > > > implement a treaty that the Senate never ratified. Looks like > > > another > > > > > > > one coming along. > > > > > > > > > *The Constitution Imposes Severe Limits On A President's > > > Treaty-Making > > > > > > > Powers: * Here's the relevant section< > > >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_Am.. > .> > > > <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_Am > .. > > > .>: > > > > > > > > > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of > the > > > > > > > Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the > Senators > > > > > > > present concur; > > > > > > > > > The Obama administration is finding that limitation > inconvenient< > > >http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/05/obama-hey-lets-bypass-the-senat.. > .> > > > <http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/05/obama-hey-lets-bypass-the-senat > .. > > > .>, > > > > > > > and so they are thinking of "temporarily bypassing"< > > >http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negot.. > .> > > > < > http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negot...> > > > > > > > the Senate. Not on any important matter, just a little > agreement > > > with > > > > > > > the Russians on limiting nuclear arms. > > > > > > > > > I looked carefully through the Constitution, and could not > find > > > any > > > > > > > provision that allows a president to bypass, temporarily or > > > otherwise, > > > > > > > that limit on his treaty-making powers. > > > > > > > > > Senator Byrd --- among others --- isn't going to like this one > > > little bit. > > > > > > > - 8:08 AM, 6 July 2009 [link]< > > >http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578<http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578> > <http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578>> > > > <http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578>- Hide > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com-Hidequoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
