🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug14.201252.5866@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>
>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. 

I will if you will answer my question too.
I support the concept of sovereignty of states. Thus if any state invades
another, I support the reversal of that invasion by the means necessary.
I support the concept of an international body applying that principle.
I do not support the concept of an international body interfering in
the internal affairs of states. Thus I support the UN interfering in the
invasion of Kuwait by Iraq (but not the US running the show or massacreing
200,000 people). Thus I support the UN imposing sanctions against the US
for invading Panama, Grenada, etc etc. No state is obliged to be a member of
the United Nations - I believe Switzerland is not a member.
Neither can any state join and play a role if it  breaks the rules (S. Africa,
for instance was denied certain privileges, Taiwan was not permitted to join
under the name of "China", etc.) 


>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! 


Perhaps you would suggest the other forum you have in mind.
Who said world government is implied (not me?) I only said
that an international body is not a bad idea in terms of resolving
international conflicts, if it is democratic. Is that too complicated?


>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.

I agree. Depending on what a "good military action" means. There are measures
within the UN charter which recommend the solution of conflicts regionally
and voluntarily by diplomacy first and then by UN means only after the former
fail.

Frank