On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>A couple of points: there's no such thing as "the UN",
>just a lot of countries that either reach agreement about
>things or don't, and especially there's no such thing as
>"a UN initiative". Who it is who is doing something,
>isn't "the UN".

By that logic there is no such thing as "England" or "Scotland" or
"The UK" or "The United States", or even, for that matter, "Manchester
United".

On 2022-05-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-05-25 7:19 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2022-05-25, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-22 8:03 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-20 1:54 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-20 12:01 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-20, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:24 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 3:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a very expansive answer. Why not ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's send your kids then. Mine went to Iraq already. Twice. He was
>>>>>>>>>>>> smart enough to refuse to volunteer to go to Afghanistan after that. He
>>>>>>>>>>>> and his First Sergeant had a four hour talk about his lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering skills during that talk.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lynn, Iraq had nothing to do with NATO. That was the US GOP that invaded IRAQ
>>>>>>>>>>> specifically Dick and George after lying through their teeth about the
>>>>>>>>>>> causes belli.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that Bill Clinton supported the war declaration and has
>>>>>>>>>> stated that Bush went to war out of a genuine belief that large quantities
>>>>>>>>>> of weapons of mass destruction remain unaccounted for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill Clinton wasn't president and didn't make any of the decisions leading
>>>>>>>>> to the ill-considered and arguably illegal incursions into either Iraq
>>>>>>>>> or Afghanistan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What he said, or not, is an irrelevant diversion. Bush lied, and he
>>>>>>>>> knew it was a lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see. So the opinion of an ex-President who had access to the classified
>>>>>>>> information about WMDs and Iraq for almost a decade is irrelevant compared
>>>>>>>> to the opinion of a random person on the internet. Silly me...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, but he had access to what the administration at that time wanted
>>>>>>> to let him know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't say Clinton had access in 2002. My "almost a decade" was what
>>>>>> Hussein did (rather, what the intelligence agencies thought he did!)
>>>>>> with WMDs post Gulf War. That was just short of 10 years when Bush
>>>>>> took over. Note that Clinton launched a massive bombing campaign in 1998
>>>>>> because of WMDs (as well as bombing other places in Iraq at least
>>>>>> once a week afterwards while enforcing the no-fly rules.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Ummmmm.... ...no.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The bombing campaign was not by any stretch of the imagination
>>>>> "massive". It was conducted over just 4 days.
>>>>
>>>> You do have a pretty unique idea of word definitions. I can guarantee
>>>> you that even now if Russia suddenly attacked 97 separate sites in
>>>> Ukraine with over 1000 bombs/missiles over a 4 day period, it would be called
>>>> massive.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. The campaign took place not because there was evidence that Iraq had
>>>>> WMDs, but rather because Iraq was refusing to allow access by UN
>>>>> inspection teams into certain facilities.
>>>>
>>>> All I said was because of WMD, which you agree with here since the
>>>> UN teams were looking for WMD.
>>>>
>>>>> 3. Even that was a bit of a sham as several details of the supposed
>>>>> rationale for the campaign were false. The inspectors weren't kicked out
>>>>> by Iraq for instance: the US embassy in Iraq suggested they pull out
>>>>> because of forthcoming US and British airstrikes. Kind of puts the cart
>>>>> before the horse, don't you think.
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>>> 4. According to some, the operation was mostly an attempt to destablise
>>>>> the Iraqi regime and degrade Iraq's ability to defend itself against
>>>>> anyone in a future conventional war.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Former U.S. Army intelligence analyst William Arkin contended in his
>>>>> January 1999 column in The Washington Post that the operation had less
>>>>> to do with WMD and more to do with destabilizing the Iraqi government.
>>>>
>>>> So? It still was because of WMD (along with other reasons).
>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Only 13 targets [out of 100] on the list are facilities associated with
>>>>> chemical and biological weapons or ballistic missiles,"'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_bombing_of_Iraq>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One more tidbit from there:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Dr. Brian Jones was the top intelligence analyst on chemical,
>>>>> biological and nuclear weapons at the Ministry of Defence.[25] He told
>>>>> BBC Panorama in 2004 that Defence Intelligence Staff in Whitehall did
>>>>> not have a high degree of confidence any of the facilities identified,
>>>>> targeted and bombed in Operation Desert Fox were active in producing
>>>>> weapons of mass destruction.'
>>>>>
>>>>> So your argument that Clinton had knowledge of the situation is correct
>>>>> in general...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...but the reality is that what he would have heard is almost the exact
>>>>> opposite of what you WANT him to have supposedly known.
>>>>
>>>> What a silly statement (by you, not Jones). Of course they would not
>>>> have a high degree of confidence of active WMD! If they had solid
>>>> evidence, they would be directly deposing Hussein rather then just
>>>> pressuring him (and destroying the evidence). As you said, they
>>>> strongly wanted him gone.
>>>>
>>>> And all of your inaccurate quibbles still don't offer any evidence
>>>> against Clinton believing that Iraq had WMDs.
>>>
>>> You presented those strikes as evidence that the US administration of
>>> the day believed that Iraq had WMDs...
>>
>> I agree with that. And you haven't denied my claims at all.
>>
>>> ...and I showed a lot of other interpretations...
>>
>> You missed others that are equally likely. For instance, all our
>> recent memories could be due to a simulation, and Iraq never invaded Kuwait.
>
> Yeah... ...you're making a serious rebuttal....
>
> (How do I sneer in text?)

And I thought my reply was a pretty good sneer... Oh well.

>>
>> Just saying someone has not 100% proved their argument is to say nothing -
>> 100% proof in arguments about reality doesn't exist.
>
> Your "proof" isn't prove.
>
> On the contrary, it appears that the existence of WMDs was hardly a
> factor at all.

I assume you do agree that Clinton's entire speech announcing the
operation was aimed at reducing the ability of Hussein to attack with
WMDs?
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

On Sun, 22 May 2022 09:29:19 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>They like having North Korea as a buffer keeping prosperous and
>democratic South Korea from being a directly connected neighbor and any
>attempt to invade North Korea would cause more problems than the present
>regime does. Also China wouldn't need to invade to remove the Kim
>dynasty. North Korea is dependent on China for its existence. Without
>Chinese aid and trade North Korea would collapse. Well, collapse even
>more than its current state.

Of course they do - and for the same reason Russia / USSR has liked
having Finland neutral for so many years.

And yes I completely sympathize with the Finnish prime minister who
said when asked what he'd tell Putin about his application for NATO:
"look in the mirror!"

On Sun, 22 May 2022 08:58:38 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 May 2022 19:10:55 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>On 5/21/2022 9:48 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-17 9:31 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/2022 8:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 18:57:30 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Why Would US Give a War Guarantee — to Finland?”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://buchanan.org/blog/why-would-us-give-a-war-guarantee-to-finland-159385
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War
>>>>>>>> ended, are we still expanding NATO? Russia does not threaten the
>>>>>>>> United States. As for any threat that it poses to its European
>>>>>>>> neighbors, let them deal with it.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a very expansive answer.  Why not ?

This is Pat Buchanan here we're talking about who is an extreme
isolationist who thinks EVERY country should stand on their own
against any enemy no matter how bellicose.

This is the same Pat Bucanan who described the Anglo-French guarantee
to Poland in 1939 as 'the greatest blunder of the 20th century' and
claimed Britain should have made peace with Hitler in 1940
conveniently ignoring the fact that Hitler had violated at least 6
treaties made by Germany (Naval Arms limitation treaty, Versailles
SEVERAL times - notably the clauses involving armored weapons, air
force and an outright ban on union with Austria and the clauses on
occupying and militarizing the Rhineland, his 1935 treaty with
Mussolini on Austria, the Anschluss itself, the Munich agreement which
he violated when he occupied Bohemia in 1939 - and I could go on) my
point being that Buchanan argues that Britain SHOULD have made peace
with Hitler conveniently ignoring that by 1939 NOBODY in the
Chamberlain cabinet believed Hitler would keep ANY treaty he made and
that that was a key reason they DIDN'T seek a peace - and that that
was before Churchill became Prime Minister.

(And yes I >have< read Buchanan's book where he makes all these claims
and more)

And lest you think I'm clutching at straws by mentioning Hitler in a
discussion on Putin, Buchanan does so himself with the following quote
in the same article:

"By welcoming Finland into NATO, Biden is offering Helsinki the kind
of war guarantee Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain gave to Poland in
the spring of 1939, which led to Britain’s having to declare war on
Sept. 3, 1939, two days after Germany invaded Poland."

Given Putin's track record against SEVERAL of the former Soviet
republics not just Ukraine I think Buchanan's Hitler comparison is
completely in order - but I reach the opposite conclusion to him.

Putin has several times gone to war against former Soviet republics
and continues to do so. I am mystified why any serious person would
think he intends to do so as long as he heads his country. So I am not
at all surprised when his neighbors want to seek what protection they
can when confronted with a neighbour who has several times resorted to
war in pursuit of his aims.

My bottom line is that I am firmly convinced that the sure knowledge
that any use of nuclear weapons would be responded to in kind is the
one thing that has prevented Putin using nuclear weapons against any
of the former Soviet republics in his various wars so far. And that
such wars WILL continue either against the Ukrainians or another
neighbor as long as Putin remains in office.

As the Finnish prime minister said if Putin wants to know why Finland
is interested in NATO membership he need only look in the mirror. And
I am only mildly surprised the Swedes feel the same way.

On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 03:17:05 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >A couple of points: there's no such thing as "the UN",
> >just a lot of countries that either reach agreement about
> >things or don't, and especially there's no such thing as
> >"a UN initiative". Who it is who is doing something,
> >isn't "the UN".
> By that logic there is no such thing as "England" or "Scotland" or
> "The UK" or "The United States", or even, for that matter, "Manchester
> United".

You can find those places on maps. "The UN", nope.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
news:f72dfee3-d1d6-4ca3-a34d-86301218ca2an@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 03:17:05 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A couple of points: there's no such thing as "the UN",
>> >just a lot of countries that either reach agreement about
>> >things or don't, and especially there's no such thing as
>> >"a UN initiative". Who it is who is doing something,
>> >isn't "the UN".
>> By that logic there is no such thing as "England" or "Scotland"
>> or "The UK" or "The United States", or even, for that matter,
>> "Manchester United".
>
> You can find those places on maps. "The UN", nope.
>
You are, as always, full of shit.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/United+Nations+Headquarters/@
40.749172,-73.9717053,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!
1s0x89c2591ce0874d11:0xc5fae28bdd3df635!8m2!3d40.749168!4d-
73.9674781

https://tinyurl.com/pvwp8k63

Granted, the UN is pretty much meaningless[1], like you, but like
you, it exists.

[1]It only really matters when it accepts that it is a division of
US foreign policy, and that only for the PR value.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:51:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 03:17:05 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A couple of points: there's no such thing as "the UN",
>> >just a lot of countries that either reach agreement about
>> >things or don't, and especially there's no such thing as
>> >"a UN initiative". Who it is who is doing something,
>> >isn't "the UN".
>> By that logic there is no such thing as "England" or "Scotland" or
>> "The UK" or "The United States", or even, for that matter, "Manchester
>> United".
>
>You can find those places on maps. "The UN", nope.

Show me Manchester United on a map.

On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 23:08:35 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:51:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 03:17:05 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >A couple of points: there's no such thing as "the UN",
> >> >just a lot of countries that either reach agreement about
> >> >things or don't, and especially there's no such thing as
> >> >"a UN initiative". Who it is who is doing something,
> >> >isn't "the UN".
> >> By that logic there is no such thing as "England" or "Scotland" or
> >> "The UK" or "The United States", or even, for that matter, "Manchester
> >> United".
> >
> >You can find those places on maps. "The UN", nope.
> Show me Manchester United on a map.

Except that one. It exists in our hearts. :-)

The UN doesn't, of course.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:57:26 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
>news:f72dfee3-d1d6-4ca3-a34d-86301218ca2an@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 03:17:05 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >A couple of points: there's no such thing as "the UN",
>>> >just a lot of countries that either reach agreement about
>>> >things or don't, and especially there's no such thing as
>>> >"a UN initiative". Who it is who is doing something,
>>> >isn't "the UN".
>>> By that logic there is no such thing as "England" or "Scotland"
>>> or "The UK" or "The United States", or even, for that matter,
>>> "Manchester United".
>>
>> You can find those places on maps. "The UN", nope.
>>
>You are, as always, full of shit.
>
If that's the case why is the official name of the UK
"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?

Or the official name of the US is 'the United States of America"

I'm not trying to be difficult but if you go to the official sites of
both those countries "The" is the first word of their names.

Similarly for both Mexico and Canada.

I'm not going to quibble over the "The's" but if any insists "The" is
not part of the name they're just plain wrong.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 17:42:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 23:08:35 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:51:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 03:17:05 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >A couple of points: there's no such thing as "the UN",
>> >> >just a lot of countries that either reach agreement about
>> >> >things or don't, and especially there's no such thing as
>> >> >"a UN initiative". Who it is who is doing something,
>> >> >isn't "the UN".
>> >> By that logic there is no such thing as "England" or "Scotland" or
>> >> "The UK" or "The United States", or even, for that matter, "Manchester
>> >> United".
>> >
>> >You can find those places on maps. "The UN", nope.
>> Show me Manchester United on a map.
>
>Except that one. It exists in our hearts. :-)
>
>The UN doesn't, of course.

Do the Boy Scouts exist? If so show me their location on a map.

Does the US Army exist? If so, show me its location on a map.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote in
news:s3g39ht1fb5v4hoofhek8eitcfl6151k02@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:57:26 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
>>news:f72dfee3-d1d6-4ca3-a34d-86301218ca2an@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 03:17:05 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >A couple of points: there's no such thing as "the UN",
>>>> >just a lot of countries that either reach agreement about
>>>> >things or don't, and especially there's no such thing as
>>>> >"a UN initiative". Who it is who is doing something,
>>>> >isn't "the UN".
>>>> By that logic there is no such thing as "England" or
>>>> "Scotland" or "The UK" or "The United States", or even, for
>>>> that matter, "Manchester United".
>>>
>>> You can find those places on maps. "The UN", nope.
>>>
>>You are, as always, full of shit.
>>
> If that's the case why is the official name of the UK
> "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?
>
> Or the official name of the US is 'the United States of America"
>
> I'm not trying to be difficult but if you go to the official
> sites of both those countries "The" is the first word of their
> names.
>
> Similarly for both Mexico and Canada.
>
> I'm not going to quibble over the "The's" but if any insists
> "The" is not part of the name they're just plain wrong.
>
Dude, you really should smoke less dope when posting to Usenet. And
follow the fucking link, you retarded idiot.

The specific claim was "you can't find the UN on a map." I posted a
fucking link to Google Maps that shows . . . the UN. It is Bobbie
who is, as always (and I do mean *always*) completely full of shit
in a parcitularly *stupid* way.

What the fuck you're jibbering about, I don't know, and neither do
you.

Retard.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 27/05/2022 17.08, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:51:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 03:17:05 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:

>>> By that logic there is no such thing as "England" or "Scotland" or
>>> "The UK" or "The United States", or even, for that matter, "Manchester
>>> United".
>>
>> You can find those places on maps. "The UN", nope.
>
> Show me Manchester United on a map.

<https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5037039,-2.2681946,19z>

Not that hard to find, really.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Exodus 22:21

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 8:17:05 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> >A couple of points: there's no such thing as "the UN",
> >just a lot of countries that either reach agreement about
> >things or don't, and especially there's no such thing as
> >"a UN initiative". Who it is who is doing something,
> >isn't "the UN".

> By that logic there is no such thing as "England" or "Scotland" or
> "The UK" or "The United States", or even, for that matter, "Manchester
> United".

I should think that his point is obvious, however, and valid.

If the United States sends troops to Iraq, the decision is made by
the President of the United States, or Congress. Specific entities
which have a continuing presence within the government of the
United States.

On the other hand, if the UN sends peacekeeping forces to Somalia,
this isn't because the Secretary-General decided it was a good idea
and decreed it. Instead, it's because there was a transitory coalition
among the nations within the UN that voted for it.

So, while the UN is definitely a real entity, and there are buildings that
are its headquarters in New York City, it doesn't really have a *will*
arising from within itself as a continuing institution; it is the creature of
its member nations.

John Savard

On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:16:32 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 8:17:05 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> >A couple of points: there's no such thing as "the UN",
>> >just a lot of countries that either reach agreement about
>> >things or don't, and especially there's no such thing as
>> >"a UN initiative". Who it is who is doing something,
>> >isn't "the UN".
>
>> By that logic there is no such thing as "England" or "Scotland" or
>> "The UK" or "The United States", or even, for that matter, "Manchester
>> United".
>
>I should think that his point is obvious, however, and valid.
>
>If the United States sends troops to Iraq, the decision is made by
>the President of the United States, or Congress. Specific entities
>which have a continuing presence within the government of the
>United States.
>
>On the other hand, if the UN sends peacekeeping forces to Somalia,
>this isn't because the Secretary-General decided it was a good idea
>and decreed it. Instead, it's because there was a transitory coalition
>among the nations within the UN that voted for it.
>
>So, while the UN is definitely a real entity, and there are buildings that
>are its headquarters in New York City, it doesn't really have a *will*
>arising from within itself as a continuing institution; it is the creature of
>its member nations.

So you admit the UN exists but try to weasel word your answer so that
someone who claims that "there is no such thing" is right?

Why?

On Sunday, 29 May 2022 at 19:34:58 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:16:32 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 8:17:05 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >A couple of points: there's no such thing as "the UN",
> >> >just a lot of countries that either reach agreement about
> >> >things or don't, and especially there's no such thing as
> >> >"a UN initiative". Who it is who is doing something,
> >> >isn't "the UN".
> >
> >> By that logic there is no such thing as "England" or "Scotland" or
> >> "The UK" or "The United States", or even, for that matter, "Manchester
> >> United".
> >
> >I should think that his point is obvious, however, and valid.
> >
> >If the United States sends troops to Iraq, the decision is made by
> >the President of the United States, or Congress. Specific entities
> >which have a continuing presence within the government of the
> >United States.
> >
> >On the other hand, if the UN sends peacekeeping forces to Somalia,
> >this isn't because the Secretary-General decided it was a good idea
> >and decreed it. Instead, it's because there was a transitory coalition
> >among the nations within the UN that voted for it.
> >
> >So, while the UN is definitely a real entity, and there are buildings that
> >are its headquarters in New York City, it doesn't really have a *will*
> >arising from within itself as a continuing institution; it is the creature of
> >its member nations.
> So you admit the UN exists but try to weasel word your answer so that
> someone who claims that "there is no such thing" is right?

Well, does rec.arts.sf.written exist? Or is there a
collection of writings by different people, that is
called rec.arts.sf.written ?

If we all stop when there's a holiday, is there still
a rec.arts.sf.written happening?

On Sun, 29 May 2022 15:14:05 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 29 May 2022 at 19:34:58 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:16:32 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 8:17:05 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 14:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >A couple of points: there's no such thing as "the UN",
>> >> >just a lot of countries that either reach agreement about
>> >> >things or don't, and especially there's no such thing as
>> >> >"a UN initiative". Who it is who is doing something,
>> >> >isn't "the UN".
>> >
>> >> By that logic there is no such thing as "England" or "Scotland" or
>> >> "The UK" or "The United States", or even, for that matter, "Manchester
>> >> United".
>> >
>> >I should think that his point is obvious, however, and valid.
>> >
>> >If the United States sends troops to Iraq, the decision is made by
>> >the President of the United States, or Congress. Specific entities
>> >which have a continuing presence within the government of the
>> >United States.
>> >
>> >On the other hand, if the UN sends peacekeeping forces to Somalia,
>> >this isn't because the Secretary-General decided it was a good idea
>> >and decreed it. Instead, it's because there was a transitory coalition
>> >among the nations within the UN that voted for it.
>> >
>> >So, while the UN is definitely a real entity, and there are buildings that
>> >are its headquarters in New York City, it doesn't really have a *will*
>> >arising from within itself as a continuing institution; it is the creature of
>> >its member nations.
>> So you admit the UN exists but try to weasel word your answer so that
>> someone who claims that "there is no such thing" is right?
>
>Well, does rec.arts.sf.written exist? Or is there a
>collection of writings by different people, that is
>called rec.arts.sf.written ?
>
>If we all stop when there's a holiday, is there still
>a rec.arts.sf.written happening?

Of course it exists.