To: ksen
FreeRepublic statement:
We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty. Wasn't one of the justifications for the Iraq War to "enforce UN Security Council" resolutions?
To: deaconblues
It was one of the items that added to the legality and helped bring other nations on board. It also allowed another piece to fit into the Constitutionality of the invasion (Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 10- authorizes Congress to 'define and punish offenses against the laws of nations.')
In other words, we oppose the UN controlling us, but there is nothing stopping us from using them as a tool.
81 posted on
09/11/2007 11:53:24 AM PDT by
mnehring
(Thompson/Hunter '08- Time to have the real men in charge!)
To: deaconblues
We are still members of the body and indeed hold a key leadership role. This is one time we used the UN to support our position to some extent, which is not the same as them lording over us.
Of course if you have further issues I would take it up with Jim, I am just following the lead he set out here, one I support...
87 posted on
09/11/2007 11:57:24 AM PDT by
ejonesie22
(I don't use a sarcasm tag, it kills the effect...)
To: deaconblues
Wasn't one of the justifications for the Iraq War to "enforce UN Security Council" resolutions?I believe you're correct.
92 posted on
09/11/2007 12:00:00 PM PDT by
ksen
("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson