IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Told you, you wanted 1441...
however, the interpretation of 1441 has been called into question by some.

Let's start from the beginning, shall we?

We have 678 is a UN resolution.

During 1441...well,

On this point I think one thing is extremely clear. The key point of the contention was this matter of 'automaticity.' The Council was willing to sign on to demanding compliance but only if it was in charge of deciding what constituted compliance and non-compliance.

Basically, they were only willing to do it if they got another bite at the apple and got an opportunity to interpret their own words. It wasn't going to be up to DC regime-change scribes to decide what was a 'material breach'. It was going to be up to France, Russia et.al.
[link|http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/march0303.html| TalkingPointsMemo ]

So...everyone figured that they're be at least another vote....including America's UN Representative John Negroponte.


There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.


Now, the US also reserved the right to withdraw from the Security Council process.


The US made it very clear it reserved the right to opt out of the Security Council process altogether -- which it eventually did -- if the Security Council later acted in a way that the US administration did not deem serious. The US has that right. Some folks don't think we have that right. I think we do. I just don't think it was wise in this case.

In any case, declaring a contingent intention to opt out of the UN process is, by definition, not a part of the UN process. If there's anyone who doesn't grasp this, I've got some square pegs and round holes I'd like you to take a stab at.
[link|http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/march0303.html| TalkingPointsMemo ]

Now, I'm not saying we're illegal...but saying this is sanctioned by the UN...when we opted out....
Expand Edited by Simon_Jester March 26, 2003, 09:28:55 PM EST
New nothing in 1441 abrogated 678
it was in addition to
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Since corporations are the equivelent of human but they have no "concience" they are by definition sociopaths
     Illegal war? as in Illegal because congress didnt delare it - (boxley) - (27)
         Yes, I am a citizen of the United States. - (mmoffitt) - (19)
             fair enuff, thanx -NT - (boxley)
             Speaking of which. - (ChrisR) - (6)
                 The French are better Americans than we are. - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                     D00d...relax -NT - (Simon_Jester) - (4)
                         RELAX - HELL! - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                             If you believe in Democracy (or even a Republic) - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                                 You know what bothers me about that? - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                     <chuckle> you do pick the good ones, don't you? - (Simon_Jester)
             But, the US Congress gave Bush a blank check! - (a6l6e6x) - (10)
                 Understood. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                     But... - (bepatient) - (7)
                         But... - (ChrisR) - (4)
                             Technically... - (cybermace5) - (3)
                                 Correct me if I'm wrong... - (ChrisR) - (2)
                                     Congress can't really declare a War anymore... - (gdaustin) - (1)
                                         These Acts of War cover.... - (ChrisR)
                         Wrong. Congress cannot obsolve itself of its duty. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                             Im pro the war but On the legalities you are right - (boxley)
                 There's no blank check. Congress controls the checkbook. - (Another Scott)
         Told you, you wanted 1441... - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
             nothing in 1441 abrogated 678 - (boxley)
         Been addressed already. - (Brandioch) - (4)
             ROFL dont beleive the salesman, read the contract -NT - (boxley) - (3)
                 You skipped reading that article again, didn't you? -NT - (Brandioch) - (2)
                     yes, I read your quote and replied to that - (boxley) - (1)
                         Yep, I thought so. Again. -NT - (Brandioch)

He done made them there squiggly lines into WORDS!
102 ms