Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ATOMIC_PUNK; backhoe; Libertarianize the GOP; Carry_Okie; 2sheep; 4Freedom; Alamo-Girl; AnnaZ; ...
I've been thinking about how much the coverage of these votes has hammered home to the sheeple some notion that the UN treaties are ALL to be considered moral and for the common good. Thinkng specifically of CEDAW.
15 posted on 02/28/2003 3:03:12 PM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: madfly
You know, the sad thing is, I wouldn't have problems with U.N. treaties if the other signatories had the same duties and obligations, and observed them. Just like I don't have problems with gun control if criminals abide by it. And I don't have problems with judicial review if judges read the Constitution's plain language to mean what it SAYS.

I wish I could say I'm still anti-military force, but I'm not against using military force in Iraq any more. I don't think we can afford to be. If we back down now, in the face of U.N. intransigence, Titus' comments notwithstanding, I believe we actually empower the U.N. and Iraq. If we don't bomb Saddam to a pulp, we will have set him up to be THE Islamic leader for years to come.

Even Pat Buchanan, who is still against the use of military force, admits that we're damned if we do or don't at this point. He'd rather we didn't. I'd rather be Machiavellian, and be feared, since it's far too obvious we won't be loved.

God forbid we should actually follow the Constitution and declare war. The War Powers Act is a Johnson-era anachronism that everyone agrees is wrong, but both parties use to avoid their Constitutional duties, to America's detriment.
25 posted on 02/28/2003 9:24:07 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (U.N. out of U.S.! (yes, that order is correct!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: madfly
"For those convinced of Saddam's murderous intentions, the debate has centered on whether or not we should focus our efforts on assembling a coalition of friends and allies and seek the enhanced legitimacy that approval by the United Nations might render to our actions. But I believe that is the wrong debate," he said in his statement last fall. "We have no choice but to act as a sovereign country prepared to defend ourselves, with our friends and allies if possible, but alone if necessary. There can be no safety if we tie our fate to the cooperation of others, only a hope that all will be well, a hope that eventually must fail."

I'm totally convinced of Saddam's intentions. No question about that. I also agree that as a nation we have the right to defend ourselves with or without the UN's approval.

28 posted on 02/28/2003 11:04:52 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson