...How soon will the US go to war? ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The second or third week of March.
...War Good God Y'all, What Is It Good For?...
... ... Absolutely Nothin ... ...
... ... Lets say it again ... ...
As for the thread title.
Claiming material breach for having residue on the inside of old shell casings is ridiculous. It is just another reason for people to think GWB and the leaders of America just want to kill Iraji Men, Women, and Children for any possible reason they can come up with. It is desgusting. If GWB wants to fight terrorism, he should start in his own back yard. The Crypts, Bloods and many other US "Social" groups aren't exactly role models for the world either.
<strong>And what IS a material breach then? The weapons were not in the declaration, yet they were found. That's a material breach.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well they claim to be looking for weapons of MASS destruction.
If you saw the video, there were people standing right next to the casings breathing the air. That residue is so small it probably couldn't kill a fly if it ate it.
So if you are sentenced to death for murder just because you were caught having a empty holster, but it had old gun power residue on it, you would be Okay with that. I seriously doubt it.
He was much closer to the type of anti-Semite Sartre describes. Â*"Authentic liberty assumes responsibilities, and the liberty of the anti-Semite comes from the fact he escapes all of his. Â*Floating between an authoritarian society which has not yet come into existence and an official and tolerant society which he disavows, he can do anything he pleases without appearing to be an anarchist, which would horrify him" (Sartre 33).
All you?re doing is legitimizing the ?legalization? of criminal states as having equal footing with states that abide the law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the US & Israel have both violated the UN Charter so it's not as if we're all angels in this.
When a government is proven to be in violation, they're sanctioned. When a citizen is proven to be guilty of a crime, their put in jail. You want to be able to judge which countries can and can't be part of a world democracy, not their peers. You're view on this is fascist, or totalitarianist and completely unacceptable within the framework of democratic rule.
Those governments, good or bad or both, represent human individuals that will be protected. I'm sorry.
Well the US & Israel have both violated the UN Charter so it's not as if we're all angels in this.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I?m not even going to argue this you; it?s an obvious waste of time. Your threshold of proof and guilt here is a couple of orders of magnitude different as it is for others.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
When a government is proven to be in violation, they're sanctioned. When a citizen is proven to be guilty of a crime, their put in jail.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Criminals are removed from civil society. They also are no longer considered part of that civil society. They also lose the privilege to vote. Not in the UN. Here the criminals get to vote. Not only that, they get to vote for their criminal friends and fraternity. They also get to write ?laws? sanctioning others outside their criminal fraternity for alleged misdeeds and trump up charges.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
You want to be able to judge which countries can and can't be part of a world democracy, not their peers. You're view on this is fascist, or totalitarianist and completely unacceptable within the framework of democratic rule.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Every kind of murderous undemocratic regime is allowed membership, and you have the nerve to call their participation part of a legitimate democratic process, and my objections to this ?fascist? and ?totalitarian?. You?re just amazing.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
Those governments, good or bad or both, represent human individuals that will be protected. I'm sorry.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
They do not. They are NOT representative governments. They are gangster thiefdoms and nothing more. And by having them as members you are just legitimizing and ?legalizing? these criminal regimes. It is a subversion of justice in the crudest way imaginable. One where the criminals run the courts, deciding who's to stands on trial, and deciding who?s guilty and who?s innocent. This upsidedown, perverse lunacy is like something out of the Twilight Zone or George Orwell?s novels.
Well they claim to be looking for weapons of MASS destruction.
If you saw the video, there were people standing right next to the casings breathing the air. That residue is so small it probably couldn't kill a fly if it ate it.
So if you are sentenced to death for murder just because you were caught having a empty holster, but it had old gun power residue on it, you would be Okay with that. I seriously doubt it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They were chemical warheads. They were empty. They were, in the words of inspectors, "in excellent condition". Iraq did not declare them. Now, they have coughed up four more. I suppose they just forgot? Saddam has about zero credibility and you think this is acceptable? Please.
They were chemical warheads. They were empty. They were, in the words of inspectors, "in excellent condition". Iraq did not declare them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True. But also true that they were from the 80s and the containers they were in has birdpoo all over them and that Iraq have recognized that they should have declared them AND noone in UN or US administrationsee this as the smoking gun.
Like I said, you want to be the one that picks and chooses who is right and wrong. Sorry, not good enough for me. Your bias, as that of any country, is too strong. When every country good or bad gets a vote it can temper the idiots like Bush who want to unilaterally go to war. If Bush decided next week to go to war with Israel I'd bet my last dollar that Israel would run straight to the UN for protection.
They were chemical warheads. They were empty. They were, in the words of inspectors, "in excellent condition". </strong><hr></blockquote>
They were, also in the words of the inspectors and Kofi Annan, "not a material breach." So, what makes them a material breach if they're not a material breach?
They were chemical warheads. They were empty. They were, in the words of inspectors, "in excellent condition". Iraq did not declare them. Now, they have coughed up four more. I suppose they just forgot? Saddam has about zero credibility and you think this is acceptable? Please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Forgot?!
What kind of idealistic utopian dreamworld do you live in.
If any country had to come up with a list of the weapons that they have, they would all have gross mistakes. Besides, even allies do not tell each other everything about their weapons and capabilities. Even the US branches of government hide things from each other. So how can you expect a 100% accuracy from a particular country when no country would be able to do it.
As a kid you probably had a list hanging on you wall of which Playboy magazines where hidden from your parents. I certainly didn't keep an accurate list. No one keeps an accurate list of things that aren't supposed to exist in the first place.
Like I said, you want to be the one that picks and chooses who is right and wrong. Sorry, not good enough for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That?s not true at all. That?s not my argument in the least. My argument is against the inclusion of undemocratic states, and giving them a voice and a place as though these are legitimate governments. They are not. It?s not their political orientation pro or against that object to.
Until the UN is reformed on this most basic of basic issues, deferring disputes to that organization is just folly, and any judgment passed by that organization until then is illegitimate, due to the very illegitimacy of its members.
Unfortunately Lybia is now the president of the human right commission. It's a shame. Only two or three countries voted against it : USA , Canada.
France did not vote agains it (only abstention ) and i don't know for GB. Knowing that Lybia is responsible of two bombing of planes a french one (nigeria) and a british one (Lockerbie) where hundreds of people died, this is truely astonishing.
I don't want to listen what willl this commission will said.
My argument is against the inclusion of undemocratic states, and giving them a voice and a place as though these are legitimate governments. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's cool. You could have been clearer earlier.
Personally, I agree that in the long run the U.N. will/should push countries towards doing that. In the meantime, the only way to be able to exert influence over these other countries is to let them in the U.N. and let them have their say. In time (and time on a global scale is slow) the world should keep moving towards democratic systems.
If we only include those countries now though, the U.N. would be nothing. It would only be able to back up its wants via force and that's exactly the opposite of what it is designed to do. It's designed to prevent and avert war. It's not NATO and shouldn't be.
It's called give and take. The U.N. has to accept everyone in order to exert some control and influence. One day there might be the equivalent of the United States' Civil War, when the U.N. is large and strong enough to force the stray countries under its net. Right now it would be useless to leave, unless you support the idea of one minority exerting its control over the entire world.
First of all, the notion of the smoking gun is ridiculous in the first place. Iraq must prove it no longer has a program. It must actively cooperate with inspectors, showing them former weapons sites, etc. They must ACTIVELY disarm. They aren't supposed to just sit back and "not resist" the inspectors.
Suddenly, Saddam once again gets what he wants. He is shifting the burden of proof to the international community. It's the OTHER WAY AROUND. This is just becoming a friggin game of hide and seek.
<strong>Unfortunately Lybia is now the president of the human right commission. It's a shame. Only two or three countries voted against it : USA , Canada.
France did not vote agains it (only abstention ) and i don't know for GB. Knowing that Lybia is responsible of two bombing of planes a french one (nigeria) and a british one (Lockerbie) where hundreds of people died, this is truely astonishing.
I don't want to listen what willl this commission will said.
This is a really bad joke.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's such a shame. Why didn't France vote against it? How does this shit keep happening?
Unfortunately it's things like this that lead me to conclude that the UN is an irrelevant organization unworthy of consideration.
<strong>First of all, the notion of the smoking gun is ridiculous in the first place. Iraq must prove it no longer has a program. It must actively cooperate with inspectors, showing them former weapons sites, etc. They must ACTIVELY disarm. They aren't supposed to just sit back and "not resist" the inspectors.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well if you are an American, you certainly don't seem to believe in the fundamental reasoning of your Constitution, Civil Liberty, and Justice.
Or is "Innocent until proven guilty" only applicable to people you like. Hell even the detainees in Cuba are being given that.
But for Iraq. They are presumed guilty and must provide proof that they are. What a sick twisted form of Justice some of you seem to have. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
It is the same twisted rules of Justice that was used in the Salem Witch Trials.
Well if you are an American, you certainly don't seem to believe in the fundamental reasoning of your Constitution, Civil Liberty, and Justice.
Or is "Innocent until proven guilty" only applicable to people you like. Hell even the detainees in Cuba are being given that.
But for Iraq. They are presumed guilty and must provide proof that they are. What a sick twisted form of Justice some of you seem to have. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
It is the same twisted rules of Justice that was used in the Salem Witch Trials.
<strong>a british one (Lockerbie) where hundreds of people died
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
The Lockerbie bombing was of an American plane (Pan-Am, I believe) flying to America from Germany. The town it ploughed into after the explosion was British.
Comments
<strong>
...How soon will the US go to war? ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The second or third week of March.
...War Good God Y'all, What Is It Good For?...
... ... Absolutely Nothin ... ...
... ... Lets say it again ... ...
As for the thread title.
Claiming material breach for having residue on the inside of old shell casings is ridiculous. It is just another reason for people to think GWB and the leaders of America just want to kill Iraji Men, Women, and Children for any possible reason they can come up with. It is desgusting. If GWB wants to fight terrorism, he should start in his own back yard. The Crypts, Bloods and many other US "Social" groups aren't exactly role models for the world either.
<strong>And what IS a material breach then? The weapons were not in the declaration, yet they were found. That's a material breach.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well they claim to be looking for weapons of MASS destruction.
If you saw the video, there were people standing right next to the casings breathing the air. That residue is so small it probably couldn't kill a fly if it ate it.
So if you are sentenced to death for murder just because you were caught having a empty holster, but it had old gun power residue on it, you would be Okay with that. I seriously doubt it.
[quote]Originally posted by zMench:
<strong>
PS.
] <a href="http://members.tripod.com/wcoventry0/id22.htm"; target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/wcoventry0/id22.htm</a>;
] <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/hr071498/herzstein.html"; target="_blank">http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/hr071498/herzstein.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
THE ANTI-SEMITE:
He was much closer to the type of anti-Semite Sartre describes. Â*"Authentic liberty assumes responsibilities, and the liberty of the anti-Semite comes from the fact he escapes all of his. Â*Floating between an authoritarian society which has not yet come into existence and an official and tolerant society which he disavows, he can do anything he pleases without appearing to be an anarchist, which would horrify him" (Sartre 33).
Sounds familiar Bunge?
<strong>
Get real.
All you?re doing is legitimizing the ?legalization? of criminal states as having equal footing with states that abide the law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the US & Israel have both violated the UN Charter so it's not as if we're all angels in this.
When a government is proven to be in violation, they're sanctioned. When a citizen is proven to be guilty of a crime, their put in jail. You want to be able to judge which countries can and can't be part of a world democracy, not their peers. You're view on this is fascist, or totalitarianist and completely unacceptable within the framework of democratic rule.
Those governments, good or bad or both, represent human individuals that will be protected. I'm sorry.
<strong>
Well the US & Israel have both violated the UN Charter so it's not as if we're all angels in this.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I?m not even going to argue this you; it?s an obvious waste of time. Your threshold of proof and guilt here is a couple of orders of magnitude different as it is for others.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
When a government is proven to be in violation, they're sanctioned. When a citizen is proven to be guilty of a crime, their put in jail.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Criminals are removed from civil society. They also are no longer considered part of that civil society. They also lose the privilege to vote. Not in the UN. Here the criminals get to vote. Not only that, they get to vote for their criminal friends and fraternity. They also get to write ?laws? sanctioning others outside their criminal fraternity for alleged misdeeds and trump up charges.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
You want to be able to judge which countries can and can't be part of a world democracy, not their peers. You're view on this is fascist, or totalitarianist and completely unacceptable within the framework of democratic rule.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Every kind of murderous undemocratic regime is allowed membership, and you have the nerve to call their participation part of a legitimate democratic process, and my objections to this ?fascist? and ?totalitarian?. You?re just amazing.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
Those governments, good or bad or both, represent human individuals that will be protected. I'm sorry.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
They do not. They are NOT representative governments. They are gangster thiefdoms and nothing more. And by having them as members you are just legitimizing and ?legalizing? these criminal regimes. It is a subversion of justice in the crudest way imaginable. One where the criminals run the courts, deciding who's to stands on trial, and deciding who?s guilty and who?s innocent. This upsidedown, perverse lunacy is like something out of the Twilight Zone or George Orwell?s novels.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
<strong>
Well they claim to be looking for weapons of MASS destruction.
If you saw the video, there were people standing right next to the casings breathing the air. That residue is so small it probably couldn't kill a fly if it ate it.
So if you are sentenced to death for murder just because you were caught having a empty holster, but it had old gun power residue on it, you would be Okay with that. I seriously doubt it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They were chemical warheads. They were empty. They were, in the words of inspectors, "in excellent condition". Iraq did not declare them. Now, they have coughed up four more. I suppose they just forgot? Saddam has about zero credibility and you think this is acceptable? Please.
<strong>
They were chemical warheads. They were empty. They were, in the words of inspectors, "in excellent condition". Iraq did not declare them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True. But also true that they were from the 80s and the containers they were in has birdpoo all over them and that Iraq have recognized that they should have declared them AND noone in UN or US administrationsee this as the smoking gun.
I just want to balance things.
<strong>...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said, you want to be the one that picks and chooses who is right and wrong. Sorry, not good enough for me. Your bias, as that of any country, is too strong. When every country good or bad gets a vote it can temper the idiots like Bush who want to unilaterally go to war. If Bush decided next week to go to war with Israel I'd bet my last dollar that Israel would run straight to the UN for protection.
<strong>
They were chemical warheads. They were empty. They were, in the words of inspectors, "in excellent condition". </strong><hr></blockquote>
They were, also in the words of the inspectors and Kofi Annan, "not a material breach." So, what makes them a material breach if they're not a material breach?
<strong>
They were chemical warheads. They were empty. They were, in the words of inspectors, "in excellent condition". Iraq did not declare them. Now, they have coughed up four more. I suppose they just forgot? Saddam has about zero credibility and you think this is acceptable? Please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Forgot?!
What kind of idealistic utopian dreamworld do you live in.
If any country had to come up with a list of the weapons that they have, they would all have gross mistakes. Besides, even allies do not tell each other everything about their weapons and capabilities. Even the US branches of government hide things from each other. So how can you expect a 100% accuracy from a particular country when no country would be able to do it.
As a kid you probably had a list hanging on you wall of which Playboy magazines where hidden from your parents. I certainly didn't keep an accurate list. No one keeps an accurate list of things that aren't supposed to exist in the first place.
<strong>
Like I said, you want to be the one that picks and chooses who is right and wrong. Sorry, not good enough for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That?s not true at all. That?s not my argument in the least. My argument is against the inclusion of undemocratic states, and giving them a voice and a place as though these are legitimate governments. They are not. It?s not their political orientation pro or against that object to.
Until the UN is reformed on this most basic of basic issues, deferring disputes to that organization is just folly, and any judgment passed by that organization until then is illegitimate, due to the very illegitimacy of its members.
France did not vote agains it (only abstention
I don't want to listen what willl this commission will said.
This is a really bad joke.
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>
My argument is against the inclusion of undemocratic states, and giving them a voice and a place as though these are legitimate governments. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's cool. You could have been clearer earlier.
Personally, I agree that in the long run the U.N. will/should push countries towards doing that. In the meantime, the only way to be able to exert influence over these other countries is to let them in the U.N. and let them have their say. In time (and time on a global scale is slow) the world should keep moving towards democratic systems.
If we only include those countries now though, the U.N. would be nothing. It would only be able to back up its wants via force and that's exactly the opposite of what it is designed to do. It's designed to prevent and avert war. It's not NATO and shouldn't be.
It's called give and take. The U.N. has to accept everyone in order to exert some control and influence. One day there might be the equivalent of the United States' Civil War, when the U.N. is large and strong enough to force the stray countries under its net. Right now it would be useless to leave, unless you support the idea of one minority exerting its control over the entire world.
I don't.
Suddenly, Saddam once again gets what he wants. He is shifting the burden of proof to the international community. It's the OTHER WAY AROUND. This is just becoming a friggin game of hide and seek.
<strong>Unfortunately Lybia is now the president of the human right commission. It's a shame. Only two or three countries voted against it : USA , Canada.
France did not vote agains it (only abstention
I don't want to listen what willl this commission will said.
This is a really bad joke.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's such a shame. Why didn't France vote against it? How does this shit keep happening?
Unfortunately it's things like this that lead me to conclude that the UN is an irrelevant organization unworthy of consideration.
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>Liberal media...
Sigh.
] <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos120302.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos120302.asp</a>;
<strong>First of all, the notion of the smoking gun is ridiculous in the first place. Iraq must prove it no longer has a program. It must actively cooperate with inspectors, showing them former weapons sites, etc. They must ACTIVELY disarm. They aren't supposed to just sit back and "not resist" the inspectors.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well if you are an American, you certainly don't seem to believe in the fundamental reasoning of your Constitution, Civil Liberty, and Justice.
Or is "Innocent until proven guilty" only applicable to people you like. Hell even the detainees in Cuba are being given that.
But for Iraq. They are presumed guilty and must provide proof that they are. What a sick twisted form of Justice some of you seem to have. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
It is the same twisted rules of Justice that was used in the Salem Witch Trials.
[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>
Well if you are an American, you certainly don't seem to believe in the fundamental reasoning of your Constitution, Civil Liberty, and Justice.
Or is "Innocent until proven guilty" only applicable to people you like. Hell even the detainees in Cuba are being given that.
But for Iraq. They are presumed guilty and must provide proof that they are. What a sick twisted form of Justice some of you seem to have. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
It is the same twisted rules of Justice that was used in the Salem Witch Trials.
[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea it's like exactly the same thing yet completely different. I mean it's so obvious that it's not clear at all.
<strong>a british one (Lockerbie) where hundreds of people died
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
The Lockerbie bombing was of an American plane (Pan-Am, I believe) flying to America from Germany. The town it ploughed into after the explosion was British.