Try reading in context!
AT Shodan, the context was:
You asserted a right for the USA to cause a country to ‘die horribly’ for crossing the interests of the USA.
I pointed out that vice versa, US actions regarding Guantanamo might equivalently give a valid excuse for organising attacks on the US or Americans.
Regarding the ad hominem attack by Martin Hyde:
1/ Not living in the USA does not affect the validity of an argument
2/ Having a firm point of view with which a poster finds offensive does not affect the validity of an argument.
3/ Criticising the US does not mean agreeing with problems in other countries. I feel that claiming democratic and legal superiority requires a higher standard of behaviour than despots and dictators. Criticising with reason is not per se ‘bashing’.
I was educated at secondary and college level in both the US and UK. I have a position between two countries, both of which (and their allies) I wish to hold to high standards. I have great respects for the US system of Government on paper but less for the way it is actually carried out.
I do think that this sort of ad hominem attack should be avoided and the current question considered rather than past posting history battles.
This is incorrect, we’ve fought a lot of wars without UN approval and generally do quite a bit of violent things without UN approval. It’s not really accurate to say that America has been dependent on getting UN agreement to its interventions in other countries. In fact I’d say it has been extremely not dependent on that. The only real limit to U.S. intervention in foreign countries is the public opinion of the U.S. electorate and the Congress. Which supports my point the UN itself serves little restraint purposes. Russia or China are equally unrestrained by the UN as the U.S.
I never made this claim.
We post under handles and build reputations for ourselves. I’m assuming on many issues I’m routinely ignored or detested on sight because I have a conservative reputation on a very liberal forum. That’s fair.
You seem to care only about the ills of the United States and post lots of negative threads about the United States. This makes me wonder if you’re someone who genuinely believes in the issues you talk about (which would require you to also dislike the actions of Iran, Russia, North Korea, China, Japan, France, Germany, South Africa, Venezuela etc etc etc), or if there is some reason you only care about the ills committed by the United States.
My concern with the sincerity and intellectual depth of your beliefs is that they appear to be extremely narrowly focused, not that they are insincere simply because they are anti-American.
“In approving the agreement, Congress added a provision stating that nothing in the text would limit the United States’ ability to preserve its national security.” The position of the United States since the moment it signed the treaty is it had the right to deny visas, and it has never made it secret. That makes it difficult for me to buy any argument that we’re derelict in our treaty obligations, we made it known back in '48 how we would proceed. If the UN took issue with it they should not have agreed to be hosted within the continental United States.
Except we’re not doing that. We want it both ways. Until and unless we move it, we’re stuck with it.
Strange that so much time and effort was put into getting UN approval over Iraq and Afghanistan and how when not available for Syria, no action was taken.
I complained about an ad hominem attack based on my location:
“He doesn’t live here” your words.
You’re seeing the “identical behavior” from John Mace in this thread??? But the behavior of which you speak is starting multiple US-bashing threads and not much else. You usually write carefully crafted posts that are easily understood, even when I disagree with you, but that makes absolutely no sense. Especially since it is rare that I agree with the OP, whom I have called out as reflexively anti-American in many of the threads you are talking about
By that reasoning, we should not allow anyone affiliated with the Iranian government into the US. It’s the same government* and has not apologized for those actions. I don’t really care if there is an explicit treaty regarding Ambassadors to the UN. I want my country to rise above that kind of pettiness. If we can let in someone from North Korea, we can let in this guy, and not force US political issues onto the UN body.
And I am not a big fan of the UN in the first place. But we wanted it here, we got it here, and we should live up to responsibilities of having it here.
*Technically not the identical people, but it is a non-interrupted continuation of that government.
See my reply above for an explanation of my position.
The rest is just your perspective, not reality. Of course I despise tin pot dictatorships acting like tin pot dictators; when rule of law democracies engage in the same behaviour, then it is commentary worthy- dog bites man- no story, man bites dog- story.
Lack of UN approval was not so troublesome to Obama. It was lack of US approval that stymied him.
I believe the following actions have been taken without U.N. approval:
[ul]
[li]1958 military intervention in Lebanon[/li][li]1960-1975 military intervention (outright war) in South Vietnam[/li][li]1962 naval blockade of Cuba (in contravention of international agreements which prohibit blockades)[/li][li]1965-66 Intervention in Dominican Republic[/li][li]1966-1967 special forces intervention in Guatemala[/li][li]1969-1975 Extensive bombing campaign against Cambodia[/li][li]1981-1992 troop presence and interventions in El Salvador[/li][li]1982-1984 conventional troop and Navy intervention in Lebanon[/li][li]1983-1984 invasion of Grenada[/li][li]1986 Air strikes against Libya[/li][li]1989 Intervention in Panama[/li][li]1992-1994 Blockade of Serbia and Montenegro[/li][li]1993-1996 Intervention in Bosnia[/li][li]1994 Intervention in Haiti, overthrow of leadership[/li][li]1998 Air strike on Sudan[/li][li]1998 Air strike on Afghanistan[/li][li]1998 Air strike on Iraq[/li][li]1999 Air strike on Serbia[/li][li]2001 Troop deployment in Macedonia[/li][li]2004-2005 Intervention in Haiti[/li][/ul]
I’d argue we act so frequently without U.N. approval that seeking U.N. approval is actually the exception to the rule.
No. The guy was part of a group who held a number of people with diplomatic immunity hostage during the 1979 revolution. That’s about as clear a violation of international law as it gets. What’s amusing is to see all of the contortions in this thread to ignore that central fact. The US isn’t required to allow everyone put forward as a diplomat to the UN entry into the country. It’s ridiculous to even suggest such a thing.
As to supposition that the UN be moved to another country, I’m perfectly good with that, but in reality this is just mental masturbation, since it’s not going to happen. There is zero chance the UN will move. Almost no one wants it to move. And if it DID move, then whoever the host county was, THEY would have the right to vet applicants to the UN who would be stationed in their country, and have a right to refuse anyone they so chose, just like nation states have the right to refuse regular diplomats to their countries.
It’s totally dissimilar. It’s ridiculous for you to assert that the US has to allow anyone submitted by another country as a diplomat to the UN. There is no way ANY country would be so constrained.
Can you demonstrate where in the treaty the US is forced to allow anyone put forth by another country access to the US? It’s totally ridiculous. What if a nation had put forth Bin Laden when he was still alive as a diplomat? Are you seriously suggesting that the US would be required to allow him entry into the US and give him diplomatic status?? What if some nation proposed Saddam Hussein, again when he was still alive? I mean, get real here. Of COURSE a host nation (the US in the case of the UN) is allowed to vet potential diplomats, even if they are diplomats to the UN because they are going to be living and working in the US and will have diplomatic immunity…which, unlike the Iranians, we will actually respect.
Under the letter of the treaty the United States is supposed to enter arbitration with the United Nations when it has an objection to letting someone be appointed to the U.N. as an Ambassador or in some other diplomatic role. However, in ratifying the agreement in 1948 the Congress made it clear that the United States retained unilateral right to reject visa applications of objectionable persons on national security grounds (which is a broad term that is determined at the discretion of the United States.)
It’s always been questionable to what degree other parties “accepted” that caveat, and the United States has rarely relied on it (this is the first time we’ve rejected an Ambassador to the United Nations.) But this isn’t the first time we’ve relied on the concept (we had flaps with the U.N. off and on over the PLO and its leadership), and since international law is no different than contract law, I don’t view any sort of intrinsic right or wrong. The United States made its intentions known when it signed the agreement, so it’s not really acting legally improperly as far as I’m concerned. The United Nations is welcome to take us to court if they want. It’s no different to me than when we sign a residential lease and we mark through a provision and initial it to make an alteration.
Try reading the Treaty.
Exactly the hypocrisy I am claiming. The US signs a Treaty. Congress unilaterally alters this. (In the Texas Judicial Killing- The Us signs a Treaty, Texas ignores it).
A treaty entered into with the US is essentially worthless as post hoc events can withdraw the undertakings.
As long as you recognize that your silence in the face of Iranian violations of diplomatic immunity makes your condemnation of the US actions in this case less than worthless.
Regards,
Shodan
The solution is obvious. Let him land in the U.S. and then immediately take him hostage.
Thirty years ago the US embassy in Tehran was invaded and the IRA ran riot on the streets of Northern Ireland.
in 2014 Martin McGuinness, PIRA commander, serial killer and terrorist is Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and the US is trying to extract revenge from someone in some way associated with the embassy invasion at the same date.
People do things in their youth that are not reflected half a generation later.
In 1960 Mandela was a terrorist; in 1990 he was a saint.
In 1960 there was massive criticism of Martin Luther King- accused of fomenting Black unrest ; in 2000 there is hardly a township outside redneckville that does not have a MLK Blvd and he now has a Federal holiday.
Things change; people change.