nino_savatte said:The "US honours its commitments"? Which "commitments would those be?
All of them.
nino_savatte said:The "US honours its commitments"? Which "commitments would those be?
rogue yam said:All of them.
nino_savatte said:Again, which "commitments" would those be? All of "them", meaning what, precisely? Like the cut and run during Gulf War I; that seems to me to be a complete abrogation of one's commitment to the "cause".
rogue yam said:The subject of the exchange is international treaties. Context, my boy, context.
nino_savatte said:How about you answer the question instead of evading it?
rogue yam said:I did.
Whatever.nino_savatte said:No you didn't: you think you did - there's a very big difference between the two.
rogue yam said:Whatever.
rogue yam said:Well, the wise course is to never say "never", so my answer is that the U.S. honors its commitments. This leftist meme that somehow the U.S. willfully and consistently violates valid, binding agreements in a way that others do not is complete bollocks. But has there never in all of history been a single instance where an argument could be made against U.S. action? Who knows?
rogue yam said:Whatever.
ViolentPanda said:Ah, a resort to the ultimate refuge of the political parrot, writing "whatever" instead of addressing the substantive issue.
KeyboardJockey said:Leftist meme -- your having a fucking laugh yammie aint you.
Here is a list of those times when the US has vetoed resolutions at the UN.
Unlike you when I'm asked for info I at least go and look for it. This is from a progressive muslim site. http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0312-Veto.html
List of UN Security Council resolutions
vetoed by the USA 1972 - 2002
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in
Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on
Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the
occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France,
China) to insure United Nations decisions on the
maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the
Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in
occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the
quantity and quality of development assistance to
underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear
collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of
South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation
of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled
by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights
violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of
Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in
occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties'
exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United
Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human
rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal
or external affairs ofstates.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations
Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in
multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living
conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied
territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the
Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South
Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic
Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped
countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of
United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and
individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test
explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration
on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing
countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its
economic and social system in accord with the
will of its people, without outside interference
in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests
in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of
nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent
nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote
disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical
and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care,
proper nourishment, national development, etc are
human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring
states, condemns apartheid and attempts to
strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the
Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians,
human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq.
18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in
Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights
occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of
economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for
the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession
of states in respect to state property, archives
and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear
free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications
order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and
the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper
nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and
the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing
countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics,
and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and
other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern
Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics,
and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern
Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the
occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade
and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and
neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to
observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against
South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese
civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human
rights, trade, media bias, the environment and
development. 8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions
in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon.
2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from
Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the
League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court
of Justice concerning military and paramilitary
activities against Nicaragua and a call to end
the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study
the underlying political and economic causes of
terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism
and to differentiate it from the struggle of people
from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international
debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of
mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in
the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and
1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence
of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in
Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to
the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by
Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in
East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba.
8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.
Now what was it that Yammie said about the US obeying international agreements etc???
nino_savatte said:Ta for that KBJ, I was afraid I'd have to produce that list.
nino_savatte said:Ta for that KBJ, I was afraid I'd have to produce that list.
KeyboardJockey said:Oh you mean THAT list that RY supplied -- the one that turned out to be a load of old pony.
errr...no it ain't, unless the UN itself is seen as a sort of treaty (which is a huge elasticisation iof the word 'treaty)'; it is the over-arching universal framework of international legal procedure as agreed post-WWI and WWII.rogue yam said:What some call "international law" are really treaties that are entered into freely by the United States, as ratified by the elected members of our Senate.
but...but...you yourself says the US always 'honours its' commitments', yet - leaving aside that this is purest hogwash - this implies that in a conflict between supra-national commitments, and US laws/congress-derived policy, then the US shouldn't honour its' commitments.However treaties may never, under any circumstances, trump our Constitution. In America, the Constitution always prevails. The present question is about the power of the President of the United States to undertake unilateral action.
rogue yam said:What some call "international law" are really treaties that are entered into freely by the United States, as ratified by the elected members of our Senate. However treaties may never, under any circumstances, trump our Constitution. In America, the Constitution always prevails.
angry bob said:Article VI of the Constitution declares treaties to which the U.S. is a party to be the "supreme law of the land".
Hang on - while I do not agree with the veto, it is part of the UN setup, so using their veto is not a failure to obey international agreements. You also have to look at the small print on some of those resolutions to understand why they were opposed.KeyboardJockey said:Now what was it that Yammie said about the US obeying international agreements etc???
KeyboardJockey said:Here is a list of those times when the US has vetoed resolutions at the UN.
<blah, blah>
Now what was it that Yammie said about the US obeying international agreements etc???
Red Jezza said:errr...no it ain't, unless the UN itself is seen as a sort of treaty
but...but...you yourself says the US always 'honours its' commitments', yet - leaving aside that this is purest hogwash - this implies that in a conflict between supra-national commitments, and US laws/congress-derived policy, then the US shouldn't honour its' commitments.
talk about inconsistency....
KeyboardJockey said:Nice One!
rogue yam said:What you have written is pure shite.You imply that excercising our veto is an act of disobeying agreements. But the veto is provided under the agreements, so to excercise it is merely to implement a certain provision of the agreements.
Why do I have to repeatedly point out such simple, obvious things to you? What is wrong with you? For that matter what is wrong with u75 in general that so much of the rhetoric on here is such patent falsehood and yet so rarely does any poster say to another, with whom he generally agrees, "Now, hold on there mate..." What you all don't realize is that such corruption and unseriousness leaves vulnerable all that you hold dear.
rogue yam said:No, not nice one. Sorry.
Article VI establishes (in part) that the U.S. Constitution, the federal laws promulgated thereunder, and treaties take precedent over the Constitutions and laws of the individual states. This is what is meant by the phrase "supreme law of the land". It places treaties over the California Constitution (say), it does not place treaties over the U.S. Constitution, which is the subject of this thread. Try again, lads.
rogue yam said:What you have written is pure shite.You imply that excercising our veto is an act of disobeying agreements. But the veto is provided under the agreements, so to excercise it is merely to implement a certain provision of the agreements.
Why do I have to repeatedly point out such simple, obvious things to you? What is wrong with you? For that matter what is wrong with u75 in general that so much of the rhetoric on here is such patent falsehood and yet so rarely does any poster say to another, with whom he generally agrees, "Now, hold on there mate..." What you all don't realize is that such corruption and unseriousness leaves vulnerable all that you hold dear.
(Edit: Now, having read to the end of the thread, I see TAE's comment directly above this one. That is an example of what there needs to be more of on this board.)
TAE said:Hang on - while I do not agree with the veto, it is part of the UN setup, so using their veto is not a failure to obey international agreements. You also have to look at the small print on some of those resolutions to understand why they were opposed.
Never-the-less, I agree that the US (and no doubt the other veto holding countries) have clearly used their veto in many questionable circumstances.
That's why I think the whole security council setup should be reviewed.
rogue yam said:(Edit: Now, having read to the end of the thread, I see TAE's comment directly above this one. That is an example of what there needs to be more of on this board.)
I disagree - there is a quantum difference between - say - versailles 1919, or brest-litovsk, and the group of documents which created the UN. The latter is a comprehensive, over-arching set of instructions on how to shape the world and its' societies, the former isn't.rogue yam said:So far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, yes, the U.N. Charter is a treaty.
no, it isn't, and you've totally ducked the Q. straight answer please, like I expect in the business I run:It is always possible for human beings to make various laws or other agreements that conflict with one another, whether accidently or otherwise. The U.S. Constitution is the tool by which Americans sort out which of any such conflicting commitments prevails for us. It's simple, really.
and you have saidtreaties may never, under any circumstances, trump our Constitution.
so if treaties agreed by any given US president conflict with the domestic agenda....which way?"the US always honours its' commitments"
nino_savatte said:The US expects other countries to adhere to international law and UN resolutions but ignores such laws itself. Are you going to suggest that isn't the case? Because there is a large body of evidence that says you are wrong.
nino_savatte said:Wrong, wrong, wrong, that is the world according to FreeRepublic and it doesn't square with the reality at all.