Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
Now you sound like Judge Moore - I don't agree with the findings of the court, so I'm going to do my own thing anyway.
|
Not at all, and I don't appreciate the comparrison. Moore challenged the law of the US, his sovereign nation. I am challenging the law of the UN, which is TREATY law, merely CONTRACT law. Contracts can be, and are, broken all the time. There are consequences to breaking a contract, and sometimes one of the parties does real analysis and determines it will accept those consequences. Take the UK/EU choosing to ignore WTO beef-hormone rulings or the US considering ignoring steel rulings, in the instance of the WTO. Moreover, I'm not advocating breaking the rule (I have always said it would have been *nicer* for all if the US had somehow waited for and wrangled approval from the UN) so much as I am advocating *changing* the rules -- which is exactly the appropriate thing to do with a body like the UN, which is akin to a legislature (at base -- I realize that's a simplistic comparrison).
Quote:
|
If we are going to castrate the SC, then we should do so for it's failure to take action against the US/UK when they invaded Iraq, as this shows a bias in the way that the law was administered. Not OK for Iraq to invade Kuwait without cause, is OK for US/UK to invade Iraq without cause.
|
Well, this just goes to prove my point, doesn't it. The UN sat on its hands regarding Iraq, and sits on its hands regarding the US. The only thing the UN has are warm hands these days.
Quote:
|
A pointless body by virtue of the fact that all of the power of the UN lies with the Security Council, and all of that power lies within the hands of just five nations.
|
More proof of my points. Do we really disagree all that much?