You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #9: Sigh. Oh and IBTL. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
9. Sigh. Oh and IBTL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -OK, let's put this to a test. mmonk  Mar-20-11 08:26 PM   #0 
  - What do you hope to accomplish by this post, mmonk?  gateley   Mar-20-11 08:26 PM   #1 
  - The flaw in the argument that treaties trump the Constitution itself  mmonk   Mar-20-11 08:57 PM   #15 
     - Thanks -- is that what people are claiming? nt  gateley   Mar-20-11 09:09 PM   #22 
        - Yes  bahrbearian   Mar-21-11 01:07 AM   #25 
           - Okay -- thanks again. I admit I haven't been following that angle because  gateley   Mar-21-11 09:48 AM   #26 
  - The US would veto such a motion.  Bolo Boffin   Mar-20-11 08:27 PM   #2 
  - Here is a test -  DURHAM D   Mar-20-11 08:29 PM   #3 
  - I'll answer that if you answer this, and I will supply "the book"  Motown_Johnny   Mar-20-11 09:08 PM   #21 
     - NMJ  DURHAM D   Mar-20-11 09:12 PM   #23 
  - here's the problem with that: The U.S. has veto power  cali   Mar-20-11 08:32 PM   #4 
  - So it's conditional on who we like and don't like or want to go to war with.  mmonk   Mar-20-11 08:43 PM   #11 
     - yes. of course. did you see the my post about what Mullen said  cali   Mar-20-11 08:50 PM   #13 
     - Yep. And to take it a step further, can it be used by the executive  mmonk   Mar-20-11 08:55 PM   #14 
     - Well, depending if the situation on the ground in Israel  NoTimeToulouse   Mar-20-11 10:02 PM   #24 
  - Presumably the NFZ in that resolution, if it passed, would also be US policy  kenny blankenship   Mar-20-11 08:33 PM   #5 
  - Or how about this one: What if the UN ordered Jimmy Johns and nobody asked Congress what they wanted  Buzz Clik   Mar-20-11 08:33 PM   #6 
  - ............  Angry Dragon   Mar-20-11 08:34 PM   #7 
  - As others have mentioned, if the US did not veto it then  NYC Liberal   Mar-20-11 08:36 PM   #8 
  - Sigh. Oh and IBTL.  madinmaryland   Mar-20-11 08:36 PM   #9 
  - Why would it be locked?  mmonk   Mar-20-11 08:48 PM   #12 
  - That would take being non hypcpocritcal in our use of force.  Arctic Dave   Mar-20-11 08:39 PM   #10 
  - Recommended. nt  TBF   Mar-20-11 08:58 PM   #16 
  - No. The US is in no way required to participate in UN-sanctioned actions.  Blue-Jay   Mar-20-11 08:59 PM   #17 
  - If the President decided to support a U.N. resolution on Israel  ProSense   Mar-20-11 09:01 PM   #18 
  - both the UK and Russia are permanent members of the UN Security Council  Motown_Johnny   Mar-20-11 09:02 PM   #19 
  - Thank you!  snot   Mar-20-11 09:04 PM   #20 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC