tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451465052133798222.post2321726864642140148..comments2023-09-20T03:36:44.284-04:00Comments on Information Dominance Cubed (ID3): Fifth Response to TalknicMichael LeFavourhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15065941002101612810noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451465052133798222.post-71189316282786102012010-05-23T08:17:11.158-04:002010-05-23T08:17:11.158-04:00I quoted you verbatim as you demanded. You said th...I quoted you verbatim as you demanded. You said the Security Council was not involved in the Congo because of a civil war.<br /><br />"Strange that they actually CONFIRM and define, specifically, where the use of force is allowed."<br /><br />I posted the entire resolution in question and quoted verbatim the portions that confirm and define where force is authorized. Force was authorized to prevent civil war, a detail you refuse to accept, which highlights your general lack of comprehension.<br /><br />The link you gave to MUNOC is the only "external" link on the Wiki article. I like to understand how people make their mistakes, so I dismantled your argument from your point of view and discovered that coincidence in the process. You did your research on site known to be full of errors.<br /><br />"..why didn't you just use one of the many UN resolutions of the relevant time period?"<br /><br />Like the ones I provided and you've answered to, citing passages even. Two lies... Tch tch tch<br /><br />Excuse me? I provided the resolutions AFTER you linked to MUNOC. <br /><br />"Strange the main criticism of the UN is that it DID follow the rules, just as it did in Rwanda. One must first understand the specific limitations of the peace keeping mandate."<br /><br />I already detailed the case with references to the ICRC, the ICJ, and more. Yet you remain ignorant. The Security Council DOES get involved in civil wars, exactly as I have claimed. Much electronic ink has been wasted already trying to get you to admit that you are wrong on this irrefutable point.<br /><br />Read Chapter 1, Article 2 (1) of the Charter. All member nations are supposed to be equals with the rest of the members. Except in the case of Israel, because Israel is not allowed to sit on the Security Council. All other sovereign members can, but not Israel. Point to the many frivolous resolutions against Israel and show which one is meant to rectify this gross inequality in violation of the Charter. Get back to me when you have it.Michael LeFavourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15065941002101612810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451465052133798222.post-39096514415015419422010-05-21T14:53:48.808-04:002010-05-21T14:53:48.808-04:00//When two or more states are involved, it is not ...//When two or more states are involved, it is not a Civil War, even though a Civil War might also be in progress...//<br /><br />"So it can't be a civil war even when a civil war is in progress?"<br /><br />If you say so....I didn't.<br /><br /><br />"After you claimed that the UN Security Council does not get involved in civil wars, I pointed to Security Council resolutions and the Congo crisis of the early 60s as an example to refute your statement,"<br /><br />Strange that they actually CONFIRM and define, specifically, where the use of force is allowed. I have already gone over this in exacting detail.<br /><br />"..my guess is because of relying on Wikipedia for your information .."<br /><br />Poor guess, especially as you referenced the actual link I gave, which was NOT Wiki. <br /><br />"..why didn't you just use one of the many UN resolutions of the relevant time period?"<br /><br />Like the ones I provided and you've answered to, citing passages even. Two lies... Tch tch tch<br /><br />"As to your new (pointless) claim that the UN has been governed by the charter all along, this reinforces the fact that you are being dishonest."<br /><br />You've really lost it..<br /><br />"What I have disputed is your interpretation of what the Charter says and whether the UN has followed the rules you think the Charter lays out. It has not."<br /><br />Strange the main criticism of the UN is that it DID follow the rules, just as it did in Rwanda. One must first understand the specific limitations of the peace keeping mandate. <br /><br />"Israel for example, is the only nation that is unequal to all others in violation of the purposes and principles, as codified in Chapter 1, Article 2 (1) of the Charter, a situation the UN has deemed acceptable for 60 years without convening one of its many infamous one sided special sessions on Israel."<br /><br />Uh huh....where did the numerous UN/UNSC resolutions condemning Israel's illegal behaviour come from? The UN/UNSC perhaps?<br /><br />"..you chose a mission statement that explains what the UN is doing in the Congo....four decades later...to prove that there was no civil war in the Congo in 1961, right?"<br /><br />Er, no, it was to show an explicit example of why the UN was there. But go ahead and repeat yourself ad nauseum. It's kind of like watching a smack freak rolling in the glorious paradise of their vomit before they're jacked up on narcan...(again....)<br /><br />"It has gone from claiming that the Security Council does not get involved in civil wars to linking to an irrelevant mission statement you found on Wikipedia saying.."<br /><br />That'd be the MUNOC link I gave. Three lies...<br /><br />You're out ... Bye.Talknichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13169078712802693284noreply@blogger.com