Time Out

The New Republic ^ | January 30, 2003 | The Editors

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

[Bullish]

Good piece, logical and concise. Too bad no liberals will ever read it. And even if they did, none of it would penetrate their brainwashed, skulls full of mush.

[philman_36]

Be sure and stop by the




Organization of American States (OAS)
Note the the US flag is the third left from the twelve o'clock position.
Anniversary Event of the United Nations Conventional Arms Register
Another regional organization has helped lead the way. At its 1995 meeting, the 34-members of the Organization of American States (OAS), agreed to a variety of confidence- and security-building measures. These include the exchange of information and participation of all member states in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms and the Standardized International Reporting of Military Expenditures. In 1998, in a follow-up to the Santiago Conference, the OAS agreed to improve and broaden the information submitted by the member states to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, so as to enhance the hemisphere's contribution to pursuing the aims of that Register, in compliance with the relevant UNGA resolutions.

But why bother you with such trivialities...We have a Veto on the Security Council.

[MHGinTN]

The democrat party and supporters are so bitter at losing their deathgrip on power, they now endanger the nation in order to thwart this administration from waging successful war against maniacal enemies. That's why I've named them the Axis Of Acorns ... bitter little nuts unfit for consumption.

[Rocky]

Big bump for liberals making sense. What a refreshing change.

[spodefly]

An intellectually honest liberal reading of events. They had to get in the Bush/Cowboy association, and point out that "liberals, rightly" had called for everything Bush has done to this point in the process, but at least all liberals are not insane ... despite the significant evidence from other liberal quarters (DNC, The Nation, NYT, et al.) Plus, this is the first time I have seen the word 'elide' used since a 200-level college English course.

[Servant of the Nine]

Duck, the Black helicopters are flying low tonight.

None of those treaties are valid if they contravene the US Constitution.

You are hyperventilating over PR and diplomatic Blather.
International Law comes out of the barrel of a gun. Right now that makes The President of the United States, in consultation with Congress, the Supreme Panjamdrum and Ultimate Arbiter.
Nothing else is real. Nothing else counts.

So9

[Servant of the Nine]

Screw the UN --- Which will it be?

My Tag Line says it all.

So9

[philman_36]

Duck, the Black helicopters are flying low tonight.
Aren't you the trite one.
None of those treaties are valid if they contravene the US Constitution.
Yeah, try telling that to the ones who support that disarmament crap and other such things. They'll tell you that those treaties do. Someone else who thinks they do...

The Vienna Convention is in force for 81 nation-states, not including the United States. The reason it is not in force for the United States is that a stalemate exists between Congress and the Executive Branch over the allocation of authority between the two branches to enter into and terminate international agreements (treaties in the international sense) on behalf of the United States. The stalemate would not exist if such agreements were not regarded as binding on the United States internationally. It is precisely because they are regarded as binding that so much is at stake between the two branches of government.
The United States government has frequently demonstrated that it regards treaties (including treaties for U.S. constitutional purposes as well as other international agreements) as binding instruments under international law. For example, when France breached the 1946 Air Service Agreement between itself and the United States, our government asserted a breach of an international obligation and applied counter-measures to induce France to rectify its breach. The U.S. counter-measures were upheld by an international arbitral tribunal. 54 Int'l Law Reports 304 (Award of Dec.9, 1979).
Snip...Treaties, including the United Nations Charter, are binding instruments under international law, subject to limited grounds much like those in domestic contract law for invalidating or terminating them.
You are hyperventilating over PR and diplomatic Blather.
No, I'm not hyperventilating over anything. That's twice now in one week that I've been accused of hyperventilating. Is someone conferencing?
International Law comes out of the barrel of a gun.
Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. First it's PR and diplomatic Blather and then it's the barrel of a gun. The gun is aimed at US!
Right now that makes The President of the United States, in consultation with Congress, the Supreme Panjamdrum and Ultimate Arbiter.
Is that similar to the "Grand High Poohbah? The previous snip ought to give some insight as to how well they're working together.
Nothing else is real. Nothing else counts.
You are suffering from delusions. If nothing else counts and nothing else is real why is there the pacification of the liberals that this very article talks about? Go to the UN and get permission and that is exactly what happened. Seems very real and counting to me.
The UN is real and the UN matters. Current history should tell you that! Those treaties are real and they will be enforced at some point in time by that gun barrel you mentioned earlier. You just watch, trite boy. Study hard.

[philman_36]

(We are the Hegemon. We can do anything we damned well please.)
As long as we have the UN's permission.

[philman_36]

Read this article and tell me who you should be bitching at!
A clue...it isn't me! I'm glad Bush has done what he's done.
Editors Criticize U.S. Stance at U.N. Conference on Arms Trade
Baltimore Sun, July 12, 2001: "Bush administration grandstands on the wrong side at U.N." "The Bush administration's posture is the most egregious of its isolationist gestures in international affairs, some of which it later clarified into reasonable positions. The U.S. delegation can yet find that its scruples about legitimate possession of personal weapons are not compromised. The goal should be to restrain the trade in weapons that are most sought by terrorists, child armies and narco-trafficking gangsters. Surely, the President cannot object to that."

Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 13, 2001: "Stop the world's gun runners" "It's pretty hard to see a downside to slowing the flow of grenade launchers and AK-47s to the world's civil wars. Yet somehow Bush has managed. This must be because he's looking through NRA glasses, which can make almost anything look like a threat to American gun owners."

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 16,2001: "Exporting Bloodshed" "As it did in rejecting the Kyoto protocol on global warming, the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and the formation of a permanent International Criminal Court for war crimes at The Hague, the Bush administration again has displayed arrogant apathy toward the rest of the world's problems and a refusal to take a more productive role in resolving them."
A bunch more in there. Take your fight to the right place, trite boy!

[philman_36]

And Bush and the current Congress ought "file 13" Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World while they're at it and while they still can.
But, you know what, that isn't going to happen!

[Servant of the Nine]

As long as we have the UN's permission.

When the Black Helicopter landed you obviously bumped your head on a rotor blade. Get your tin foil repaired before it is too late.

We are going to war in Iraq without a new UN resolution. We would be going even without the older ones.

So9

[Servant of the Nine]

Bush administration again has displayed arrogant apathy

Are you deficient in reading comprehension skills?

The UN blathers, the Liberal Papers editorialize, and we keep on doing just as we damned well please.

The UN has less real world significance than the French. It has no power, whatever it thinks or votes. It is a pacifier for the loser nations of the world.

You have become a panicky bedwetter afraid of the Boogie Man.

So9

[philman_36]

You've become a pathetic, ignorant smearer unable to say anything coherent.

[Servant of the Nine]

You've become a pathetic, ignorant smearer unable to say anything coherent.

I am that I am.
You, however, seem to have gone over the top into Clinical Paranoia.

So9

[r9etb]

I do not understand why the owners of the just-as-venerable New York Times have chosen to trade their institution's incredible reputation and power for a few ineffectual spears thrown at one Republican President. Such short-term thinking boggles the mind.

Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., publisher of the Times, spends his time on other matters.

For example, the parent company website lists among its company awards, The New York Times Company has been selected by the Gay Financial Network for their 2001 gfn.com 500 - their annual listing of the most powerful and gay-friendly companies within the Fortune 500.

Supposedly the gay agenda occupies a lot of their time, and their editorial writers are expected to toe that line above all others.

If your main editorial criterion has to do with a certain sexual orientation, it's not surprising that you'd end up with inconsistencies elsewhere.