[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by jumpy

And it's no surprise that no comment is forthcoming from us sources; I wouldn't want to publicly discuss some shady, outdated excuse for violating a sovereign nations boarders and abducting foreign nationals either.

I disagree, but only to the point that I think there would be some official postition either confirming or denying it. The fact that nothing has been said to me indicates that our officials aren't even sure what to make of it yet.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
Completely agree. The US has refused to let outside authorities (read UN) tell us what to do on


That comparsion does not work, Sailor Steve, for several reasons.

I hope you misread me, because I was trying to agree with you.

1. the issue in this thread is state A acting by its own laws in violation of rules and laws of state B, inside state B, without asking it for permission, cooperation, or letting it known, and without any internationally legitimated mandate. It imposes its own laws onto that state, that way.

Reducing that to our personal American experience, the US states bound themselves to submit to Federal authority where state versus state questions arose. While the US may refuse to submit to UN authority in some questions, a respect for the sovereignty and autonomy of other nations has to be paramount.

2. that does not compare to an organisation where membership is voluntary, and where states have agreed to certain rules to follow. If these rules then are being demanded by the many to be followed by the few or the one, then this is accordance with earlier agreements of the state, formally. Of course, the taregtted state sees that different, usually, but that is not the issue : the mechanism is a different one, than if one state violates foreign sovereign national law unilaterally and arbitrarily. Also, in this example, the UN decision making is transparent, and follows (ideally) principles even the targetted state before has agreed to (if it is a UN member), whereas the US in our example tries to operate secretly.

And some of us, at least, agree that that is wrong.

3. you implicitly say that the Us has a right to resist UN demands and rules, because the US is a sovereign state. On the other hand the US has no problem with the UN forming demands (with American participation) that violating the sovereignity of other nations (Iran, for example: technically there is not the smallest legal argument to demand iran to stop uranium enrichment, for example). So there is biased opportunism at work. You accept that the UN makes american-backed demands to state and violates their sovereignity in you understanding when claiming to defend that soveriegnity of the US, but you reject that the UN makes demands that you say violate america's sovereignity.

You can't have it both. It is either sovereingity for all, or for none. Ideally, the UN is not meant to be an American tool to help enforce American policies. Or any other nation'S selöfish policies, btw. In practice, it got abused from the first year on, of course.

Actually, I agree with all of the above. I don't have any specific answer to the Iran question, because I don't know everything, and try to withhold opinions until I have more facts. I have some beliefs where Iran is concerned, but no real answers.

If you want to make an argument in your reply to my earlier posting, than you need to give an example of a foreign nation that all by itself has imposed it's law onto the US and violates it's sovereignity. The UN - is no nation. It gets abused by many players, but it is no independant player in itself. It is no nation, that is.

Again, I wasn't arguing with you. I was agreeing.