Posted on 06/01/2005 2:55:30 PM PDT by P_A_I
Fred, either we abide by the U.N. or we don't. Saying we justified our action on the basis of U.N. actions doesn't wash without U.N. permission to war against Iraq. We didn't have it. It's like arresting a murderer, throwing him in jail, and saying it's okay you shot him in his cell because you could have shot him if he were running. There's a line you cross when you cherrypick law. Our strike was not legally authorized by the U.N.
Nor should we be concerned that it wasn't. I'd far rather the U.S. makes its own decisions on with whom we decide war, anyway. Screw the U.N.--the nationstate shouldn't die on the altar of the globalist priesthood of bureaucrats, especially a corrupt one like that of the U.N. or the E.U.
What the Pennsylvania LP chooses to call the statement does not define for me the meaning of the word "oath." Quite possibly they want people to take the statement seriously and not just sign off on it. By calling it an oath, it may cause people to take a second and closer look at it. But it obviously didn't work with you, as your imagination has ran wild replacing all kinds of words in it so as to remake it into something that is closer to a pacifist oath. Those words not in it that you said were are "aggressive", "engage", and "will". With this latter word making it clearly a pledge by any definitive standard, and thereby bringing it closer to being an oath in fact. (read your own posted definition of the word "promise" and then look up "oath" in your dictionary). But as I said your dreamed up words just are not in it.
Now with thirty years affiliation with so many local LPs, one must wonder how you couldn't even get the source right as to the origin of the agreement on beliefs. I had to correct you in reply #86. But after I corrected you on it, you ramble on about a second part to the quote that does not exist. It seems to me that with 30 years you would know what you signed, what it means, as well as the original source for it. I guess not.
As for the rest of your reply, my silence does not imply agreement, as you so dishonestly implied earlier in the thread. I just do not feel it necessary.
Have followed Libertarian "ideas" over the years..
They have become more "conservative" in last few years..
But they basically are for things that would eventially cause anarchy.. in more than a few things in various degrees..
Anarchy is a Pandoras Box.. You can't have just a little of it.. You get a little you get an open ended trend.. A trend not to "freedom" but to "license".. The U.S. is NOW on a trend toward "license".. in a left wing way.. Socialism is a left wing error, Libertarianism is the same error with a right wing bent..
I am proudly a bit crazy.. as my advertisement implys..
More than a bit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.