U.N. panel to frame guidelines on legality of pre-emptive strike

The Washington Times ^ | 10/6/04 | Heather J. Carlson

[My2Cents]

By what authority?

[marty60]

Time for the Reagan Doctrine

Get us out of the U.N.

[avg_freeper]

I guess the global test is becoming a reality. And voting for Kerry will guarantee that.

[dirtboy]

I think they should first work out when it is legal and acceptable for UN officials to take bribes from murderous dictators, figure out how many tens of thousands of people need to die in genocides before the UN will act, and decide out just how tyrannical a country can be and still have a seat on the UN Human Right Commission. Once they sort all that out, then get back to us on the premptive issue.

[mpreston]

Nailing down Kerry's Global Test? This should be bad for Kerry.

[My2Cents]

Let's count our blessings....If it weren't for all of the things you mentioned, the UN would actually have credibility.

[MikefromOhio]

so we would have to wait for some dirty heathen from France to give us the ok to go bomb the S out of some other dirty heathen?


ummmm no...

lets take the UN out in our next pre-emptive strike....

[dirtboy]

If it weren't for all of the things you mentioned, the UN would actually have credibility.

And by the time the UN works all that out, the engraving on my tombstone will be so weathered that no one will be able to read it.

[goldfinch]

This from an organization that is so spineless is still working on defining the term 'terrorist'. I would guess they will be quicker to define a preemptive strike as any use of United States military except under the command of the United Nations.

[SmithL]

It is illegal if it interrupts the cash flow to UN officials.

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

The rules are as long as corrupt government and UN officials are being making millions being bribed to prop up a wicked dictator, you cannot legally attack the country.

[Mister Baredog]

U.N. panel to frame guidelines on legality of pre-emptive strike

ROTFLMPJO

Why don't they solve REAL problems, ie Sudan, too tough I guess, talking is much safer.

[Leisler]

ALL UN REPORTS HERE.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The UN acted as a broker for treaties signed by Saddam during unconditional surrender at the end of Gulf War I. OK, thank you UN, you did your job. Does anyone question he broke the treaties? We can go to the UN and talk about that. All that is fine and dandy. Nations that are wronged by the broken treaties take appropriate corrective action under the laws of war.

The UN should recognize that it is no more than a place for nations to gather together to form agreements.

[AmericanChef]

They wouldn't be "studying" it if their intented results were to benefit the United States.

[Ginifer]

Fine, let the UN panel lay down guidelines for the legality of a pre-emptive strike. Guess we will just take our soldiers, tanks, planes, etc., and go home. Let those weasels defend their own countries and see how far they get without the US. Think it's about time the learned "if you play with the big boys, you'd better be able to keep up".

[My2Cents]

This is the simplest explanation and justification for our action against Saddam...."Operation Iraqi Freedom" was simply a conclusion to the 1991 Gulf War, precipitated by numerous and flagrant violations of the ceasefire agreements by Saddam. It was the wrap-up of a 12-year old ongoing war with Iraq. Frankly, looked at in this way, the UN was "illegally" violating its own resolutions in NOT approving final action to take out Saddam.

[Mister Baredog]

The UN belongs in Paris

[DoughtyOne]

If you're not with us...

I wish Paul Bunyan would kick that U.N. building about ten miles out to sea.

[My2Cents]

Here's a scenario....The UN comes up with a "test" of legality for pre-emptive action; not coincidentially, the Coalition action against Saddam "fails" the test...Hence, Pres. John Kerry immediately withdraws all US troops from Iraq, claiming they are there "illegally." Saddam is restored to power.