You are hilarious.
Do you often find facts so amusing?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are hilarious.
With out the US military there would have been no freeing of Kuwait.
The UN just got to tag along because it made it easier.
Do you often find facts so amusing?
Thats nice. In case you didn't notice the UN doesn't have a military. Its resolutions, when they are enforced, are enforced by national militaries. It wasn't a US action, it was a UN action.
Haha, no. The UN legitimised and authorised the action.
You asked for a UNSC resolution that got enforced against the countries wishes. I provided you with one. Admit you were wrong or just gloss over it like you always do, but theres no squirming out of this one.
Do you actually believe your bilge? I actually had some respect for you before you made these ignorant posts.
You just might want to check your timelines on Gulf War 1.
And I've always thought you were a dumbshit. These aren't opinions I am posting. If they are so ridiculous, why aren't you providing the alternate facts as opposed to just calling me "hilarious" and "pathetic"? Gee...I wonder why.
UNSC res. 660 was on August 2nd. The US invaded January 17th of the following year. What exactly is wrong with my timeline again?
You are a fool. But do play your game all you want. Doesn't change the reality.
I've stated the reality. You've stated nothing but insults. Do a little bit of research on int'l law and perhaps you'll figure out you are completely dead wrong. Start with how the US was forced to pay reparations to Antigua.
So I guess when all the bush apologists and neo-cons said it WASN'T about oil, they were lying?
Oh wait... we knew that... but the apologists would have called this "lefty"...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/28/iraq.usa
Yes, actually thats because it is illegal.
Check again. Its called the WTO and there are adjudicative bodies set up by the int'l community that have binding force.
By the way, the UNSC has the authority to force a sovreign nation to do whatever it damn well pleases.
Sure thing, remind me never to hire you after you become a lawyer.
You want to back that up.
I'm fairly well schooled in international trade, and I know of nothing in the WTO that forces the US to do anything. As a signatory to an agreement by which the US passed into its own laws, the US agrees to abide by the decisions in international arbitration. However, if the US chooses to ignore the ruling, there is nothing the WTO can do about it other than cite the violation and give legitimacy to countervailing tariffs by the plaintiff nation. It is bad for the US to not abide by a WTO IMHO, but there is nothing that gives the WTO any sovereignty to do anything to another nation.
Everything you said here is correct, and is not contrary to my statement at all. You do know what binding is, yes? It means that the country must follow the decisions. Not everything that is binding has enforcement mechanisms, but the lack of such mechanisms does not make it any less legally binding.
Actually...one thing you said, while technically correct, does not go far enough. The WTO does not give legitimacy to "countervailing tariffs", it allows them, and further allows not just tariffs but other countermeasures as well. The WTO's ruling on the US ruling internet gambling illegal caused the US to give Antigua an unknown large sum of money each year. And its NOT because the US wanted to give that money over, its because it was effectively forced too. If thats not an enforcement mechanism, I'm not quite sure what is.
But the WTO can't do anything to force the US to pay.
A perfect example of this is the softwood lumber case. The GATT, the WTO and NAFTA have continuously ruled against the US softwood lumber industry since at least 1981, and the US has continuously ignored and flouted the international rulings. Canada has not been able to enforce the many rulings against the United States. (And if Canada cannot, what can Antigua do? I believe the US has not yet started paying Antigua, as they should, though I may be wrong on that.)
This is terrible policy IMHO, because not only does the US undermine its own credibility in international negotiations, it forces Americans to pay about $3000 extra in taxes for a house. But having said that, there is no international organization forcing the US to do anything.
But the WTO can't do anything to force the US to pay.
A perfect example of this is the softwood lumber case. The GATT, the WTO and NAFTA have continuously ruled against the US softwood lumber industry since at least 1981, and the US has continuously ignored and flouted the international rulings. Canada has not been able to enforce the many rulings against the United States. (And if Canada cannot, what can Antigua do? I believe the US has not yet started paying Antigua, as they should, though I may be wrong on that.)
This is terrible policy IMHO, because not only does the US undermine its own credibility in international negotiations, it forces Americans to pay about $3000 extra in taxes for a house. But having said that, there is no international organization forcing the US to do anything.
He does not get it. He must believe in Santa Clause, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny too. Blind, willful ignorance.
The adults are having a conversation, go away.
Toro may be an adult, YOU are spoiled brat that thinks he is important.
As long as we are talking about hypotheticals and all, remind us again how Clinton never committed the crime of Perjury.