Well then, what does Article 6 of the Constitution really mean?

Certainly not your implication, giving up a nations' soverignty to a mis-managed, unwilling and essentially irrelevant organization. And, again, what if certain obligation to two organizations conflict with eachother, such as my earlier example?

If the Constitution says something that conflicts with what the UN Charter says, the officers of the United States are bound by the oaths they swore when they took office or accepted their commission to support the Constitution in this matter, not the U.N. Charter.

I mean, the U.S. is involved in so many treaties, it makes little sense, nor does it make any sense to hand over your soveriegnty. I suppose you need to apply logic to such examples.

Yeah, who needs to apply the law as it was written when you can supply logic. Look closely at Article 6. It does establish a "notwithstanding" clause. The fact remains that Article 6 IS binding.

If it weren't then the U.S. would have nothing to fear from signing the International Criminal Court.

I know you don't want to accept it; but Article 6 is written extremely clearly and it can be seen in practice on numerous ocassions so I'm not sure how you're refuting my "interpretation."

Even if it violated the constitution?

And you didn't answer my question. What would happen if our obligations to NATO would conflict to our obligations to the UN charter?



Relevance???



Can you name the occasions? Because I can name some occasions were it didn't.

The countries opposed did not believe that war with Iraq would improve International stability. They have the right to this stance. They also have the right to be respected for it, especially when it reflects the feelings of the majority of their people. And as it stands at the moment they are being proved right. I can only hope that this changes. I hope now America was correct, that the immense sacrifice was worth it, but right now I don't think so.



I'm sorry I know it is drifting off topic but I have to answer this. When I think of casualties I tend not to just think of Americans. I mean, comeon. There have been like tens of thousands of dead and wounded out of a whole country. (And let's not mention the crime, the power supply, the increase in terrorism, the cost etc..)





Thanks for this and the further debate of it. I didn't know that when America signs up for something it doesn't really mean it. I thought they were as good as their word. I don't know why the rest of the world is so bothered about it signing up to the Kyoto agreement when it doesn't mean anything if it does.

(Sorry if this is again a little off topic, but then not abiding by charters America signs to will have an effect on the perception of America by others)



I may of misunderstood you, but where did you get this from? So the war was backed by all but 5 countries in the world? Could you please name all the countries that were 'vehemently' pro the Iraq war?







Thank you! You have summed up in a nutshell the attude that has resulted in America’s international standing sliding downhill so rapidly.

[quote] And as it stands at the moment they are being proved right.[/qupte]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80892,00.html

The weapons of mass destruction themselves were previously DECLARED by Iraq and NOT accounted for. Read through the following article to see the exact amounts of weapons previously declared.

See, that is the problem. What the hell happened to these unaccounted for weapons? He refused to comply with demand in 1998 (before and after such a time as well) and has been rather uncooperative.

Seeing as Saddam was simply unwilling to comply with our demand for evidence saying that these weapons had indeed been destroyed. Even if we don't find weapons, that begs the question, where did they go?

It also begs the question, why did he refuse to put up evidence as to what had happeneded to these weapons. Thus, we had no evidence from Saddam that would state that he had fulfilled his obligations (and, actually, violated a great deal of UN resoloutions) thus, we went in.

[quote]The countries opposed did not believe that war with Iraq would improve International stability. They have the right to this stance. They also have the right to be respected for it, especially when it reflects the feelings of the majority of their people. And as it stands at the moment they are being proved right. I can only hope that this changes. I hope now America was correct, that the immense sacrifice was worth it, but right now I don't think so.[/quote]

It reflects the opinions of the majority of people? Any data to support this, because 1 or 2 million people showing up for a protest does not reflect the opinions of the other 300,000,000 people in this country.

In either case, the masses are rather inept. Allies who are unwilling to enforce the mutual security of a fellow nation, or the interests thereof, are behaving against the obligations of our allies. that is fine, however, do not expect America to feel inclined to aid if a similar event should occur in such countries. Though, I feel we would, they're resentment will not be forgotten.

[quote]I'm sorry I know it is drifting off topic but I have to answer this. When I think of casualties I tend not to just think of Americans. I mean, comeon. There have been like tens of thousands of dead and wounded out of a whole country. (And let's not mention the crime, the power supply, the increase in terrorism, the cost etc..)[/quote]

whether that data is true or not is irrelevant. We have no jurisdiction over foreign nationals, thus. if killing a few Iraqi's will save an American one, or help enforce the advancement of our vital interests, it is perfectly justifiable.

I do not think they would intentionally kill foreign nationals, though, unless it would benefit America. I mean, what does killing civilians intentionally do besides wasting amunitions?

And if you may recall, one of the main reasons of the current debacle in Iraq is that soldiers must acquire PERMISSION to FIRE BACK at an incoming infrigement, because of a touchy-feely administration, as well as a number of rather detrimental defense policies set forth.

The administration, in my opinion, is too soft in dealing with this war. Moralistic Conservatives tend to behave as such. We need an aggressive, American businessman/military honcho dealing with the events of the country, and not a bunch of touchy-feely, compassionate dinks.

[quote](Sorry if this is again a little off topic, but then not abiding by charters America signs to will have an effect on the perception of America by others)[/quote]

Who cares who others preceive us? They must still deal with us in some way or another, as their economies are very much reliant on us, even the more developed economies of Western Europe and South-East Asia.

America exerts much more power then many people think, which would explain they're rather reconciliative behaviour (Germany, France, etc.) towards America, affirming the strong bond between them. Russia is an exception, as they are not as developed internally as the latter, and, as a result of the break-up of the Soviet Union, are irrelevant, unless we are speaking resources.

[quote]Thanks for this and the further debate of it. I didn't know that when America signs up for something it doesn't really mean it. I thought they were as good as their word. I don't know why the rest of the world is so bothered about it signing up to the Kyoto agreement when it doesn't mean anything if it does.[/quote]

The constitution and security of the United States takes precedence of the UN charter, I regret to inform you.

There have been over 200 wars fought since the founding of the UN, and only two have been sanctionned by the UN (Korea, Persian Gulf). So, I do not really see how people keep saying this.

[quote]I may of misunderstood you, but where did you get this from? So the war was backed by all but 5 countries in the world? Could you please name all the countries that were 'vehemently' pro the Iraq war?[/quote]

The 48 members of the coalition of the willing, as well as a number of abstain countries who have lent support, such as Canada, and, well, not to mention some of the fence sitters.

[quote]Thank you! You have summed up in a nutshell the attude that has resulted in America’s international standing sliding downhill so rapidly.[/quote]

Yeah, America exhist to benefit itself like ever other damn country in the world! So, I ask, why is it wrong when America choses to enforce it's interests abroad? It's because we are the major power, and thus, people feel we are obligated to relinquish our power to benefit everyone else. Why, because they want a piece of the pie. That's the way the world works. It's all a struggle for power, either internally, or internationally.

As a Yank who has bitten his lip through several years of non-Americans unfairly lambasting Bush as a mental midget and a "cowboy" and who has friends and cyberpals from Brisbane to Birmingham, I offer the following, horribly subjective and extremely politically incorrect generalizations:

Foreign nations that generally do not hate Bush OR Americans: Australia, New Zealand, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Italy, perhaps Spain and much of Eastern Europe. Some of my Ozzie friends advise that they believe Yanks to be on the whole loud-mouthed and ignorant. But they seem to deem this a rebuttable presumption.

Foreign nations that may hate Bush but tend to like Americans in a general way: Iran, (see "Persian Mirrors" by Elaine Sciolino) ; Germany, Denmark, much of Scandinavia, Malaysia and perhaps Russia, India and the British Isles.

Foreign nations that appear to loathe Bush AND Americans in a more general sense: France, Canada, Middle Eastern countries under dictatorial rule, and (as far as we know) North Korea.

France has hated the US since the advent of DeGaulle, which takes us back a few years. The Canada thing is relatively new, but most Canadians of my acquaintance
consider the US horribly materialist (and this has substance, sad to say) and willfully ignorant of its obligations to other nations on the world stage. I am hopeful that the Canadian attitude will change when Paul Martin takes over from Chretien, and I would not be surprised to see the admittedly egregious softwood tariffs fall once Bush is reelected, as I suspect he will be. The sad thing is that many Yanks, myself included, love Canada and are at a loss to figure out why this long-friendly northern neighbour has been so contentious of late. I suspect the relationship will become substantially closer when Martin takes over; many Canadians wish it to be be so:

http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/article...027_67990_67990

In fairness, I cannot blame foreign nations and citizens for following the line that the US far left has propounded. The "dumb cowboy" stereotype is standard stuff for the left within the 50 states. It is, in a word, ridiculous. Bush may be a rich kid, and he sure has trouble pronouncing the word "nuclear", but he AIN'T NO DUMB COWBOY. He was born in New Haven, Connecticut, raised in Midland, Tx (an oil town, NOT a cattle town), and attended and graduated from YALE, not some Aggie school. His college grades were in fact better than Al Gore's, though Gore outscored him on the SATs.

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/031900/gen_gorepost.shtml

Given the SAT-score inflation that has occurred in the intervening years, it is fair to extrapolate Bush's 1200-plus SAT score to something well into the 1300s (out of a possible 1600) under present-day standards.

Again, in fairness to those outside the US, I can't blame them for repeating canards
that routinely issue from the mouths and microphones of those on the US' far-left fringe.

I'm not sure where to start. First off, please use the QUOTE function properly as it makes your postings much easier to read.



What relevance does an 8 month old article have now, seeing as those weapons that it potentially alludes too are in absentia.



This is a horrible failure of understanding. If other nations actually thought that America was threatened they would come to her aid. The fact is that Colin Powell couldn't produce a shred of evidence that America was threatened by Iraq; and none has been found since.



(Emphasis mine.) Did you just say it is alright to kill innocent people to America's interests? To what level is this true? If it were revealed that Osama Bin Laden was in Tokyo would you advocate bombing the entire city and it's approx. 20 million people into oblivion? Do you honestly believe that an American life is by default more valuable than the life of someone from another country?



Ok, so you added one country to the loose coalition of 48... how does this qualify as 'every country of the world except for five'? That is what you were asked.



The ends do not always justify the means, it is that simple. You seem to think that they do. Yes other countries are always pursuing satisfizing behaviour (I hate IPE studies...) but they do so on the understanding that their rights do not extend so far as to infringe on the rights of others. In much the same way that it would be illegal for you to kick down your neighbours door and steal his stereo, or to throw your garbage over the fence onto his property, states must act with respect for boundaries and sovereignty. The perception, which is exacerbated by your ravings, is that America does not have this respect.