🚀 go-pugleaf

f > "Frank" (Robin Collins)
gs> Gary Strand

f > Please explain how are "individual rights" defended by one country (the US)
f > or a handful of countries (the security council) dictating what the rest of
f > the world can do?

  Actually, you ought to defend the notion that a group of countries has the
  right to push one country around.

f > It is not surprising that you "have no problem" with the dictate of one
f > country, but the question is how you can claim that this dictate is in any
f > sense democratic.

  Exactly. I also have no problem with one person dictating his desire to live
  to a group of people wishing to lynch him.

f > I'm sure you would rather have an international forum disappear than have
f > the rule of one country or an elite group of them get away with anything
f > they want without criticism.

  Who said that the UN was the only possible forum for criticism? Besides, the
  UN is becoming more than just a forum for criticism. Too many people want to
  see it expanded to become some sort of world government. No thanks!

f > But the question really is whether you claimed the massacre in the Gulf 
f > was an international action because the "UN" authorized it or whether 
f > you agreed that the General Assembly never had any input into the military
f > slaughter than followed the over-riding of sanctions.  Do you remember
f > where you stood that far back?

  Whether or not the UN is involved doesn't really matter one whit. Basically,
  the countries that wanted Hussein out of Kuwait used the UN as a means to
  dress up and legitimize their desires, but as far as I'm concerned, their
  actions didn't change the moral question of what was done during the Gulf
  War at all. Basically, a massacre under UN auspices is still a massacre, 
  a good military action without UN involvement is still good.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF