andy at least we showed to the rest of the world that we are not the suck-ups everybody was calling us in the past (whenever usa does someting canada follows blindly)

much of usa's trade is done with canada also , THEY NEED US TOO , it's not in their favour if they wanna stop the economic exchange with us so ...

___________________
"A style that's impossible to define. Prog? Hardly. Tech house? Not boring enough. It's like trippy twisted acid house but deep and funky. See, I told you - impossible."

Here's another picture that speaks a million words ...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus The french are dumb ya: When opted with removing the Iraqi dictator who is atrocious under UN support, they decided to sabatoge the effort When opted with the option of violating all the core elements of the UN charter to keep the Ivory Coast government against all norms and conventions, they opt for and don't seem to make a fuss about it. Hypocrates... no never, they believe in something... something someone can't describe for sure.

you are wrong, its against the UN charter to remove the govt of a state. ANY STATE, ANY GOVT, ANY TIME.

Its a question of principles.


What the US did, creates a precedent!

1-If I, as a country, want to do something and the UN is with me, then fine! If not, then I'll do it anyways. We're back to the medieval times with its chaos.

2-If I, as a country, don't like a govt, any govt. I will take it out. Once again, we're back to the times when a kingdom was attacking another kindgom to kill its king and such primitive crap.

There's some super powers that might be tempted to do any of those two actions on the small countries that view things differently (could be China, Russia, France, etc.)

Do you see the big picture? its not only about Iraq vs. USA. Its the whole world structure that is collapsing, and this brings no good.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek you are wrong, its against the UN charter to remove the govt of a state. ANY STATE, ANY GOVT, ANY TIME. Its a question of principles.

Where does it say this in the charter? It's nice to see that if they were around in 1945 that they would have diapproved of what happened in Japan or Germany.

Also I keep asking that if what the US is doing is so wrong, where is the UN intervention to declare it illegal??? Either which way you look at the matter, the UN is worthless. It's ineffective and incapable of doing anything.

great questions. it might clarify things.

In a time of war, its legal to target the ennemy's govt. Take him down. Especially when the head of state is the supreme general of the army like Mr. Bush or Mr. Hussein. But in Japan, they spared the emperor (that's another debate all together). Actually it might make a greate excuse to kill Hussein, the Americans are in a war against Iraq so its legal to take down its govt, but if that war is legal or not...

Many many countries have said that what the US is doing now is illegal, Kofi Annan is very cautious about his wording, he said illigitmate but never said illegal. He obviously doesn't want to stirr more shit and after all his candidacy was pushed forward by the US. What did the last UN chief said about it (Boutros Boutros Ghali), its an illegal and dangerous move.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

Which just adds to my argument that the UN is worthless now. Either it's incapable of enforcing its own resolutions (the disarmament of Iraq) or it's incapable of establishing world order (US aggression against Iraq). In either scenario it's an ineffective institution that can't be trusted with anything.l

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek great questions. it might clarify things. In a time of war, its legal to target the ennemy's govt. Take him down. Especially when the head of state is the supreme general of the army like Mr. Bush or Mr. Hussein. But in Japan, they spared the emperor (that's another debate all together).

But that's a legal loop hole there. So if Hitler or the Japanese emperor weren't associated with the military at all we would have no justification for replacing them despite the fact that they set the policies for their countries?

quote:

So if Hitler or the Japanese emperor weren't associated with the military at all we would have no justification for replacing them despite the fact that they set the policies for their countries?

exact.

quote:

. Either it's incapable of enforcing its own resolutions (the disarmament of Iraq) or it's incapable of establishing world order (US aggression against Iraq). In either scenario it's an ineffective institution that can't be trusted with anything.

You have to understand something, the UN is made of its members. So if it has bad members, then it will look bad. Worse! if those bad members have vetoes then nothing works!!

All the equipment, expertise, resources are supplied by its members. So the UN doesn't have an army of its own and needs the support of its members. The UN doesn't have taxing powers so it can't collect its own resources and build its own armies (well i wouldn't like that either...). So you're right as to it being somewhat ineffective.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]