Gary Johnson for President

[JollyRoger]

Gary Johnson wants to tax all of your savings as you spend them even when you were taxed as you earned such savings via your income. The savings you don't spend in your lifetime become as stealth death tax for your loved ones as they spend it. 30% rate at that.

 

[metalhead]

Again, said violation is up to debate whether you personally think it is or not. However, lets for a moment say you are right. Then why hasn't the UN sanctioned the USA for violating its rule of law?

The Bush administration did an excellent job bullying and marginalizing the UN through his entire presidency. The U.S. was hinting they could and would simply ignore the UN altogether, even leave it if the UN tried to obstruct them or hold them responsible for the conduct of the Iraq war.

The problem is that there was a clear understanding of all parties at the time 1441 passed that its violation did not provide a trigger for the use of force, and it certainly did not support a war to depose Saddam Hussein, no matter how you want to read it. There's no doubt that the U.S. showed total disregard for the other members of the UN in claiming 1441 provided justification for the invasion, and went way beyond the mandate of 1441 or any other prior resolutions in the conduct of the war.

It wasn't just a French veto, either, the majority of UNSC member states had indicated they would not pass a resolution authorizing the use of force. So pinning it all on the French and their shady dealings is not accurate.

 

[MobBoss]

The Bush administration did an excellent job bullying and marginalizing the UN through his entire presidency. The U.S. was hinting they could and would simply ignore the UN altogether, even leave it if the UN tried to obstruct them or hold them responsible for the conduct of the Iraq war.

The problem is that there was a clear understanding of all parties at the time 1441 passed that its violation did not provide a trigger for the use of force, and it certainly did not support a war to depose Saddam Hussein, no matter how you want to read it. There's no doubt that the U.S. showed total disregard for the other members of the UN in claiming 1441 provided justification for the invasion, and went way beyond the mandate of 1441 or any other prior resolutions in the conduct of the war.

It wasn't just a French veto, either, the majority of UNSC member states had indicated they would not pass a resolution authorizing the use of force. So pinning it all on the French and their shady dealings is not accurate.

There was also a clear understanding at the time of 1441 that the UNSC wouldn't be patient forever with Iraq's compliance to resolution after resolution either, as 1441 incorporated previous resolutions which did indeed refer to use of force in the face of non-compliance.

But all of this is immaterial to the topic at hand which is Gary Johnson. Let's steer this back on topic.

 

[Takhisis]

Gary Johnson wants to tax all of your savings as you spend them even when you were taxed as you earned such savings via your income. The savings you don't spend in your lifetime become as stealth death tax for your loved ones as they spend it. 30% rate at that.

Don't taxes go against personal freedom?

 

[MobBoss]

So no, then.

That's actually a yes. Sometimes symbolic action can be just as powerful as direct action is.

But… being a good candidate is not the same as being less bad than the others.

In today's political climate it does.

 

[Takhisis]

That's actually a yes. Sometimes symbolic action can be just as powerful as direct action is.

Is it? There were a lot of demonstrations against the US (and speaking of Bush's crazy crusade, Iraq could never have dismantled nuclear weapons it did not have) but their government was unmoved, and a non-binding resolution would have been taken as that… non-binding.

In today's political climate it does.

Then Hillary Rodham Clinton is the best electable candidate the US have, by far.

 

[MobBoss]

Is it? There were a lot of demonstrations against the US (and speaking of Bush's crazy crusade, Iraq could never have dismantled nuclear weapons it did not have) but their government was unmoved, and a non-binding resolution would have been taken as that… non-binding.

But still an official statement from the UN and unprecedented. If the USA is the monster everyone makes it out to be then shouldn't such a action be expected?

Then Hillary Rodham Clinton is the best electable candidate the US have, by far.

Not by a long shot and fwiw, her unfavorable rating disagrees overwhelmingly with your stance. But we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[metalhead]

There was also a clear understanding at the time of 1441 that the UNSC wouldn't be patient forever with Iraq's compliance to resolution after resolution either, as 1441 incorporated previous resolutions which did indeed refer to use of force in the face of non-compliance.

They did, but it's not up to individual member states to decide, outside the UNSC, what the response to a material breach of a UNSC resolution is going to be. 687 clearly says that the Security Council will remain seized of the matter and take further steps to implement the terms of the resolution, including weapons inspections and the cease-fire, and to maintain peace and security in the area. There is no way to read 687 as authorizing an invasion without Security Council action, but that's exactly what the Bush administration did in their argument for the legality of the war.

As for why they didn't take action to condemn the U.S., I don't know. Certainly plenty of member states took it upon themselves to strongly condemn the war; I can only assume that with both the U.S. and U.K. being on the side of the war, the UN decided it was better for international relations and the future of the body itself to leave it alone.