[quote=“fred smith”]Glad you brought up double standards, let me remind you…
Speaking of the importance of the UN… most of the members are not democracies that do not allow the vote at home but expect to have a vote on international affairs.
the UN never authorized the invasion of Serbia, Kosovo or Bosnia. The Russians and Chinese vetoed.
The French and Germans while criticizing pre-emptive action, signed a treaty in Luxembourg in 2003 committing themselves to pre-emptive action.
The French and Russians and UN talk about international laws but given the corruption under the Oil for Food program, one really has to wonder which international laws they have not broken.
The French, Germans and Russians sold Saddam his arsenal of weapons not the UK, not the US.
The French like to talk about Kyoto but have not even lived up to their very minimal commitments. The previous Minister of the Interior admitted that France was not even close to meeting its targets.
Corruption is a major problem in most nations especially developing ones and places a huge cost/drag on the economy. Who has signed and ratified the OECD treaty to commit themselves to stopping corruption, prosecuting companies who engage in corruption, etc. ONLY THE US AND UK. No other European nation has signed it nor has Australia nor NZ. Why not?
So let’s talk double standards. Let’s talk about the hundreds of thousands of peace protesters and those chanting no Blood for Oil. Let’s examine their concern during Saddam’s reign. Let’s examine their concern when hundreds of thousands were dying under the Oil for Food corruption. Let’s listen to their record of protest against French, Russian and UN corruption.
Yes, double standards. I would love to talk about them.
AND
The US could act without UN imprimatur if it determined that it was acting in its self defense. Kofi Annan may disagree but he has no right to stop the US from acting in its self defense. No other nation has ceded this right to the UN why should the US?
The US soldiers involved in Abu Ghraib are wrong and will be punished. Must the US now ensure that none of its citizens are ever involved in crime? No. We must ensure that they are punished and they are so where is the double standard here? That some Americans have done bad things for which they are being punished or that those who criticize it so shrilly have been strangely silent despite the far more egregious abuses that have occured and are occuring elsewhere?[/quote]
Fred, at least try to keep on topic, this is about immigration restrictions be applied by the US.
even though it is off topic, Iraq as a country posed no direct threat to the security of the US, stop dreaming Fred, wake up. No proof that even Saddam posed a direct threat to the US, his neighbours possibly, but not the US. The self defense issue is poppycock and horseshit.
