Perhaps this is not what you were referring to, so I will check further.

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

When the UN carried out its investigations into human rights, Israel refused to let the UN into the Occupied Territories.

Let's bomb Israel!

but Baloo, I think I have more on the war of agression. This isn't technically in that vein, but it does have to do with what a legal war is.

Per the UN Charter (which is the Supreme law of the land, whether anti-UN nuts want to admit it or not) the use or threat of force against other nations except in self defence to an armed attack is only allowed if it is authorized by the Security Council. Now, I'm not a big fan of the Security Council, but it can often work to a positive goal. As many reservations as I have about the Gulf War, it was legal. The current bombings, however, are not. And the war against Serbia was likewise illegal.

Now, for those who are sure of the might of NATO, I point you to Article 53 which states that "no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council."

There ya go then.

Since the Russians aren't in NATO, I somehow doubt it.

*Checks Encyclopedia*

NATO has its own Council. It doesn't report to the UN.

Someone has been playing with definitions?

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

When I refer to the Security Council, I mean the UN Security Council. Russia, China, US, Britain, France. Since two of those are not in NATO... I think that's pretty obvious.

Now, if NATO were to be assimilated into the UN, that would be something else entirely.

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

The UN _IS_ the _SUPREME_ law for the NATO members. I do not believe a single NATO member is not likewise a United Nations member. Therefor, NATO is subject to UN law. The only way that is not the case is if the individual members of NATO withdraw from the United Nations.

Now, as I've said in the past, the US is a rogue state, so it doesn't matter.

------------------
Samaritan: "A good hot curry will help heal your wounds. That is, unless your religion forbids it".

Man: (Eyes growing wide) "No religion forbids a good hot curry".

Ah.. so sovreignty IS unimportant.

P.S. Helms is either an idiot or a fanatic. Possibly both.

BTW, how long does it take to go from a States-Rights-st to a Marxist? 2 or 3 PoliSci professors? Just wondering, no insult intended.

I only ever had one PoliSci prof, and I knew more than he did (he said the Soviet Union would NEVER break up, and that NATO would not expand beyond its 1989 members).

I had a sociology prof for two years, but he knew even less (but being a liberal minister can have that effect, I'm told).

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

I took a nap after work today, and I dreamed that someone had announced that they had applied chaos theory (of human behaviour) to socialism.

I've either just come up with the best idea ever had, or I've been thinking about all this too much.

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

I think that the current level of Spending is nessecary considering how many enemies the USA has. And one must take into consideration, that the list only shows public spending in the millitary it does not show how much countries have invested in thier black projects and such.

And i think that we should just assinate the SOB Sadam, and Milosovich.

------------------
I am not responsible for the stupidity of other people.

And the US creates its own enemies. Moreover, as I have shown in many cases, some of these countries don't have the GNP to come close to competing with the US. Until someone makes more of an arguement than you, I'm going to stay with my opinion.

First: My PolySci professor campaigned for Nixon/Agnew! I had to enlighten him in regards to the left on many occassions.
My "conversion" to Trotskyism was actually a very drawn out process. I've drifted through many camps since I was 15. Democrats, Populists, Libertarians, Republicans, Maoists, Trotskyists... really, it's long been the same underlying thread, just an inability to express it. My understanding of socialism came only when I turned my attention deeper into economic and social issues. Whereas this is not incompatible with state's rights, my theories on states rights came more from a misunderstanding of the constitution.

As for the UN, it is the supreme law. That is not a matter of surrendering sovereignty, it is a matter of entering into a treaty in which you agree to give up a certain level of it. To what extent? You have to abide by international law. That's pretty simple. If the US doesn't like it, they can withdraw from the United Nations. I do not understand this amazing hesitation Americans have to accepting international law. Particularly in the case of causes of war.

------------------
Samaritan: "A good hot curry will help heal your wounds. That is, unless your religion forbids it".

Man: (Eyes growing wide) "No religion forbids a good hot curry".

------------------
I am not responsible for the stupidity of other people.