what if the UN adopted a resolution favoring an overthrow of the Bush administration because our government has weapons of mass destruction on hand. So, a UN armed force invades our country for the express purpose of changing our form of government and allowing an election to create a new one based on the model we provide.
Is this acceptable?
From what source does this country derive the power to invade another country, with or without UN approval, in order to change their form of government?
2006-07-28 14:26:57 · 7 answers · asked by citigo1 1 in Education & Reference ➔ Higher Education (University +)
The US is a member of the security council with Veto power. The UN cannot make such a resolution because we could veto it.
The UN has laws including hidden agreements by its shareholders that give a 12 mile strip along each border into UN ownership. Nations whose intentions it is to violate these regions and soveriegnty of nations in the UN are subject to regime change.
Iraq, if it had functioning wmd, would have used them. Since WWII the US has not used its wmd, and doesnt plan to unless its essential to defend the nation. The US has rebuilt MASSIVE portions of the world. The EU exists because of the US effort. No US would have meant no EU. The US rebuilt japan after WWII into a nation that econmically crushed us in the 1980's, name one other country in history that has done similarly. Those things constitute acts of GOOD faith in the eyes of the UN.
Key ideas:
- Veto Power
- Crush those who first defy soveriegnty
- The US has demonstrated massive global historic good faith
2006-07-28 14:39:43 · answer #1 · answered by Curly 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the actuality that his brother's state of Florida stole the election for him. I truly have on no account depended on the yank election gadget because then. Bush became on no account elected by the individuals to be the president, he became appointed by the courtroom. What a cheat! It merely foreshadowed what we've been in for. an mind-blowing form of installation solid previous boys to workplaces they weren't knowledgeable or accomplished adequate to accomplish nicely. those 2 disfunctions of yankee rules have been the beginning up of the mess we are in at present. (of direction there is 9/11, Afganistan and Iraq yet all of that's very small potatoes thinking he shouldn't in any respect have been president in any respect!)
2016-10-01 05:13:25 · answer #2 · answered by manjeet 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Um, I wouldn't call it exactly "acceptable"- it might be a change for th ebetter, but it would probably start a fairly major war, which would likely involve nuclear weapons. Depends on how much you're willing to sacrifice for the sake of regime change.
2006-07-28 14:31:12 · answer #3 · answered by qb 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The UN wouldn't be able to adopt that resolution, because the US has veto power.
Nice try, though.
2006-07-28 14:34:26 · answer #4 · answered by Ranto 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Illegal wars and dictatorship treatment of prisoners... It's about time to overthrow him!
2006-07-28 14:30:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our version of history will prove us right!
2006-07-28 14:30:59 · answer #6 · answered by roninscribe80 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pitiful, just pitiful.
2006-07-28 14:35:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋