Home | Community | Message Board

Edabea
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinegrib
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/01/03
Posts: 550
Loc: Here and there
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #1518252 - 05/03/03 09:59 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

"I am waiting on the weapons.
Just weapons? no, not really. "

I would very much love to debate your stance on the issue with you, however, since even YOU dont seem to know your stance, that'll be hard. I'll give you a night to think it over and check back tomorrow....




Do you see a contradiction?


--------------------
<~>Our truest life is when we are in dreams awake <~>


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,286
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: grib]
    #1518434 - 05/04/03 12:13 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

In what he said? I surely does...


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #1518599 - 05/04/03 01:38 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

"Would that "justify" the war for you? "

No. The war is already justified in my mind. I know all of you would like to believe that Saddam was Ghandi incarnate, its my educated opinion that he was a despotic tyrant who terrorized his people into a constant state of fear. I am 100% sure that the Iraqi people will be better off now, than they were then.





And your opinion that one country has the right to invade another because its leader is a "despotic tyrant" is a completely uneducated one, as is your opinion that those who oppose this war think "Saddam was Gandhi incarnate." Your uneducated opinions seem to outnumber your educated ones . . .


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,286
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1518796 - 05/04/03 03:33 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

How is that uneducated? You may not agree with it, but that doesnt mean it isnt an intelligent arguement. Theres not *1* right answer. Just because YOU happen to disagree, doesnt make it wrong.

Care to enlighten me?


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #1518913 - 05/04/03 05:17 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Hang on madtown, in the other thread you say it's ok for Kuwait to be run by savage despotic dictators because that's what islamic states are like. So what's the big deal about getting rid of Saddam for human rights abuses?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #1519662 - 05/04/03 04:43 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Please spare me this "we all have our opinions and nobody's opinion is worth more than anybody else's" crapola. There is such a thing as international law and when you're talking about the relationships AMONG nations, it is the only civilized standard to which we can refer. Otherwise, everything simply becomes a matter of "might makes right."

Within international law, there is a concept known as "national sovereignty." The concept of national sovereignty stipulates that every nation has the right to self-governance and freedom from outside interference. There is also a very large body of thought defining what constitutes "just" and "unjust" wars. The most easily defensible argument for war is one of direct self-defense: nation A attacks nation B, so nation B fights back to defend itself. Nobody, including the vast majority of anti-war protestors, would argue against nation B's right to defend itself in such a case. Only fringe-lunatic pacifists would, but they are a very small minority.

A more ambiguous case for war, but still a defensible one, is one in which, for example, nation A and B share a common border, and nation A is massing its troops and artillery, etc. on the border in what appears to be preparation for a pre-emptive attack. In such a case as well, nation B would be justified in striking first in order not be overrun and invaded. Also, if nation A explicitly threatens or declares war, nation B would be justified in striking first because nation A has made its belligerent intentions clear.

Invading and occupying another country because that country's leader is a "despot" or "tyrant" does not constitute a justification for war. Even Bush knows that, which is precisely why his administration tried to find and/or fabricate as much evidence as possible that Iraq possessed WMD. However, mere possession of WMD is not proof of belligerent intent. The United States had no proof whatsoever that Iraq was planning to attack the United States or use WMD against the United States. The argument that the Bush administration made, therefore, was a highly speculative one positing speculated weapons being passed on to terrorists who belonged to a speculated alliance with Iraq, who would then use those weapons in a speculated attack against the United States. However, if no such weapons existed, the whole chain of events breaks down at Step One. Furthermore, Iraq posed no conventional threat to the United States or anybody else for that matter.

Removing despots from power is not a legitimate aim of war. To say so is not to support Saddam or any other tyrant--it is simply to recognize that international affairs either proceed on the basis of consistent, agreed-upon principles and laws, or it devolves into a nightmare in which powerful nations use threat of force to try to oppress and manipulate weaker nations. Such a state of affairs only ENCOURAGES weaker nations to try to obtain deployable WMD so that they can deter attack by superior conventional forces. Are you beginning to see the vicious circular logic at work here? The reason North Korea is scrambling to get its nukes on line is precisely because they don't want to wind up like Iraq. And if they have warheads and missiles that can hit California, you be damn sure that even Bush won't be stupid enough to fuck with them.

The governance of a nation is the internal affair of that nation. The reason this is so and must be so is because any country can use claims of tyranny, etc. as a pretext for a war which is in fact guided by the primary motivation of all aggressive wars of invasion, which is the theft of another nation's land, resources, productive labor, or all three. Essentially, this war was fought on the basis of an argument just as specious as the one Saddam himself used to attack and occupy Kuwait.

Many Americans, however, don't seem to care that the United States has basically destroyed the international system of determining what military actions are legal and illegal. The long-term consequences of this attack on the fundamental basis of international diplomacy will be far more disastrous and awful than any single war itself could be. The United States has arrogated for itself the sole authority over who may fight, and when. This fact may not bother many Americans, who naively believe that their leaders will not abuse this power and will only fight necessary and morally legitimate wars, but it certainly bothers most of the rest of the human race, who know enough about human nature in general and the American history of foreign intervention in particular to know that this kind of absolute power will corrupt America absolutely, to paraphrase Lord Acton. Whatever the long-term results of this war will be for the Iraqi people (and it is still far too early to tell just how much better off they'll be), this war has set international diplomacy back to the stage it was at in the 1930s. This is certainly bad news for the people outside of the US--and only a fool who can still stupidly believe, even after 9/11 and everything else, that Americans are still invincible in our big, mighty fortress, will not worry that this new and dangerous state of affairs will one day come back to bite us on the ass as well.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1519775 - 05/04/03 05:52 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

If we are going to bring International Law into this, we must always remember that the end of the Gulf War in 1991 was brought about by a conditional ceasefire. Note the use of the word "conditional", and remember the word "ceasefire".

Since Iraq in twelve years failed to fulfill even a single one of the conditions of the ceasefire, much less ALL of them, it takes no great legal mind to conclude that the ceasefire is null and void. Hostilities therefore resumed in 2003. It was not as if this was a NEW war -- it was merely the long-delayed conclusion of one.

Your other arguments hold water when it comes to the possibility of the US invading Iran or Syria or whatever, but Iraq was a special case because of the existence of an unfulfilled conditional ceasefire.

Further, as we are all aware, just because something is the law does not mean that something is a GOOD law (see the drug laws). For example, tens of millions of people have been slaughtered this century alone by totalitarian thugs operating strictly within their own borders. See the USSR, China, Cambodia, Cuba, and at least a dozen African nations as examples.

Basically, if you have the misfortune to live in a country run by a genocidal madman canny enough not to attack the neighboring "sovereign" nations, there is nothing that a law-abiding country can do to "legally" help you. The UN charter forbids such a country from assassinating your leader (or assisting you in doing so); the UN charter forbids such a country from providing assistance to internal movements trying topple the existing government; and the UN charter forbids such a country from crossing the border with military force to remove him. What's left? Well... the UN could always impose sanctions and file seventeen resolutions.

Let's all thank our lucky stars we live in countries where there are no such leaders, because if we ended up with one, we'd be in rough shape as long as everyone obeyed International Law.

pinky


--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (05/04/03 05:54 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,286
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Phred]
    #1519823 - 05/04/03 06:27 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I'd just like to say, that those last two posts are great. Its hard to disagree with what you say Echo, but your ommitting some key facts....Which I think are filled in nicely on the next post...


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Phred]
    #1520021 - 05/04/03 07:53 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

You really have a talent for manipulating information so that you can distort the reality without actually opening yourself up to charges of lying.

The ceasefire agreement was brokered and overseen by the UN Security Council. Both Iraq and the US signed the ceasefire with that understanding. It is therefore the Security Council's decision to make whether military action is called for. I find it surprising to find you, of all people, employing the "BushLogic (TM)" that exploits the UN to provide the legal justification for the war and then disregards the need for Security Council backing of military action.

web page http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targets/2002/0329iraq.htm

"U.N. Security Council resolution 687, adopted shortly after a U.S.-led coalition expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait in March 1991, formally brought hostilities to a close. It also demanded that Iraq destroy all its weapons of mass destruction. "The ceasefire is clearly conditional on Iraq doing certain things. If Iraq is in violation of those terms then the ceasefire is called into question," said Adam Roberts, professor of international relations at Oxford University.

The difficulty for Washington lies in the phrasing of the resolution, which appeared to leave responsibility for overseeing that ceasefire with the U.N. Security Council itself, not individual states. "There is no provision for enforcement in the resolution which authorises states to carry out military action," said Durham University's Professor Colin Warbrick. "It's for the Security Council to decide what action to take." "

Basically, if you have the misfortune to live in a country run by a genocidal madman canny enough not to attack the neighboring "sovereign" nations, there is nothing that a law-abiding country can do to "legally" help you. The UN charter forbids such a country from assassinating your leader (or assisting you in doing so); the UN charter forbids such a country from providing assistance to internal movements trying topple the existing government; and the UN charter forbids such a country from crossing the border with military force to remove him. What's left? Well... the UN could always impose sanctions and file seventeen resolutions.

Basically, the same holds true if you have the misfortune to live in a country run by a tyranny that also has the military means to fend off or at least DETER an invasion by any putative "saviors." It also holds true if you have the misfortune to live in such a tyranny, but one which lacks a wealth of lucrative natural resources that your "savior" is salivating after.

By your reasoning, any country in the world should have the LEGAL right to plot to topple the leadership of any other country in the world, or even go so far to invade any other country, so long as they can characterize that leadership as "tyrannical." And who decides whether that characterization is accurate or not? Apparently not the UN or any other third body, since you seem to think the US had every right to move forward without explicit UNSC sanction. So who becomes the final arbiter of tyranny in that case? Why, that's easy. The biggest kid on the block. In other words, whatever group of semi-literate baboons happens to be occupying the government of the United States at the moment. This is the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rice/Perle fantasy scenario--the United States does whatever the hell it wants and the rest of the world just has to deal with it.

Everything you're saying violates the idea of making decisions according to principle instead of whim (funny coming from Mr. Principles), the idea of impartial and equal application of law, and the idea of standards of evidence in determining guilt or innocence. It rests on the unstated assumption (one that anybody would be embarassed to state openly, since it is patently ludicrous) that the US government should basically be trusted, on faith, to tell the truth, make the right decisions, and not abuse its power. I disagree with Libertarians about a lot of things, but one thing I can say about them is no real Libertarian would ever actually entertain such lunacy and such naivete about the ways in which people use and abuse power.



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 32,822
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 7 hours, 55 minutes
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Xlea321]
    #1520084 - 05/04/03 08:18 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I have a feeling that weapons will be planted found soon.

Either way we had no right to do what we did.

At least that prick Saddam is out of power.



--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month:  Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1520298 - 05/04/03 09:52 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

EchoVortex writes:

You really have a talent for manipulating information so that you can distort the reality without actually opening yourself up to charges of lying.

And you have quite the talent for selectively applying principles more or less at random -- that is, when you choose to even acknowledge that there are such a things as "principles" rather than whatever custom the majority happens to hold fashionable this week.

I recall you going on and on a few months back about how the bodies of dead orphans littering the streets would create a health hazard in a libertarian society, therefore we must extort money from innocent citizens at the point of a gun to ensure there are no dead orphans. Yet we are not to raise a finger to prevent dead Iraqi children from cluttering Hussein's dungeons. Is it because Iraqi orphans have less worth than American orphans? Or is it that they are far enough away that their bodies present no health hazard to Americans?

You apparently have no difficulty seeing American tax dollars spent on foreign aid that ostensibly goes to prevent those in other countries from dying from starvation, but you do have difficulty seeing American tax dollars spent to prevent those in other countries from being murdered by their rulers.

While providing a quote (one of many, MANY others you could have chosen) showing that the ceasefire is indeed null and void, you choose to quibble over who should give the go ahead to resume. If the ceasefire is null and void, then ANY of the original parties may resume. Note I use the word choose deliberately -- although any of the original coalition had the right to finish up the war the way it should have been finished twelve years ago, none of them had the obligation to do so. They could have waited for the UN to give the green light -- sometime in the NEXT century, if ever.

I cannot help but note you avoid commenting on the fact that just because something is "law" it is not automatically correct.

Your argument (and that of the UN as well) is that whoever manages to seize the reigns of power in any country can do anything to its citizens they damn well please for as long as they want with no danger to themselves.

By your reasoning, any country in the world....

Not ANY country, no. Any free country.

...should have the LEGAL right to plot to topple the leadership of any other country in the world, or even go so far to invade any other country, so long as they can characterize that leadership as "tyrannical."

Only if they do just that and no more. Liberate the enslaved country, allow the citizens to elect their own non-totalitarian leaders, then withdraw.

And who decides whether that characterization is accurate or not?

Any country whose government outlaws all other political parties, and indulges in imprisoning and killing people for political and/or racial reasons, and allows no freedom of speech, and has no mechanism by which the people may choose a new government, and follows no objective code of laws protecting the human rights of its citizens, is by definition an illegitimate government, and may be removed.

Apparently not the UN or any other third body, since you seem to think the US had every right to move forward without explicit UNSC sanction.

I do not recognize the UN's "right" to decide when such a regime may be removed with the assistance of outside nations, no. Perhaps because they have NEVER made such a decision, and WILL never make such a decision, or perhaps because the UN is such a farcical organization and has been since it was called The League of Nations. The best thing that could happen to international relations is for the US to withdraw from the UN, kick it out of New York and tell it to take it's lame-ass act elsewhere. Switzerland was right to never have joined; too bad other nations didn't follow their lead.

Everything you're saying violates the idea of making decisions according to principle instead of whim...

See my comments above re your idea of principles.

...the idea of impartial and equal application of law...

Objective law, yes... not law by the veto of a party with sweetheart oil contracts in the bag.

...and the idea of standards of evidence in determining guilt or innocence.

Not even your beloved UN has ever tried to PRETEND that Iraq had fulfilled a single one of the conditions of the ceasefire. What "innocence" are you fantasizing about here?

It rests on the unstated assumption (one that anybody would be embarassed to state openly, since it is patently ludicrous) that the US government should basically be trusted, on faith, to tell the truth, make the right decisions, and not abuse its power.

No need to "take on faith" the US government in this case -- as I said, check what the UN has said if you think they are worth listening to. Or talk to any expatriate Iraqi. Or to the head of CNN who "self-censored" the news out of Iraq to maintain his advantage over the competition.

Don't try to misrepresent my position. I was very careful to point out that due to the unfulfilled conditional ceasefire and the fact that the US and England and Australia and Spain and the rest were participants in the unfinished war, this case is different from a legal perspective than an invasion of Syria or Iran or Cambodia would be.

As a Laissez-faire Capitalist, I agree that it was not the obligation of the US and England and Australia and Spain and the others to do anything about Iraq. They could have done the same as every other country in the world and just let Hussein go on torturing or murdering those who dissed his mustache or lost a soccer match or whatever. Just because one has the right to do something doesn't mean one must do it. And I repeat for the umpteenth time that I personally remain unconvinced that they did the right thing at the right time. Maybe they SHOULD have sat on their hands and waited for the Iraqis to free themselves.

All I pointed out is that in this specific instance your supposed "legal" argument is specious.

pinky


--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (05/04/03 10:03 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleJohan Shultz
no title

Registered: 09/26/00
Posts: 169
Loc: UTOPIA
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #1520364 - 05/04/03 10:25 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:



And how can you compare Russia, which has been (nominally) democratic for what? 10 years? With the west. Russia has barely ANY freedom of press, little control over its military, and 1000's of prisoners in jail for nothing other than their beliefs.




When did you go to Russia last time? Never.
Is it corrupted? Big time!
Is their economy fucked? Yes, but its recovering after 80 years of chaos.
Gorbachev released all political prisoners more then 10 years ago.
And there are more independent newspapers in Moscow then in the rest of the world(most of them printed on recycled paper by the way).


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Phred]
    #1520460 - 05/04/03 11:03 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I recall you going on and on a few months back about how the bodies of dead orphans littering the streets would create a health hazard in a libertarian society, therefore we must extort money from innocent citizens at the point of a gun to ensure there are no dead orphans. Yet we are not to raise a finger to prevent dead Iraqi children from cluttering Hussein's dungeons. Is it because Iraqi orphans have less worth than American orphans? Or is it that they are far enough away that their bodies present no health hazard to Americans?

And I recall you going on and on about how it was theft and a violation of human rights even to have such a thing as taxes. So why is okay to use my tax money to drop bombs on people and take their oil and NOT okay to use the same tax money to feed and shelter orphans? And if saving Iraqi children is really your concern, why not extend that privilege to all of the children all over the world under the boot of tyrannical rulers? If there's anybody here who is flip-flopping on principles, pinky, it is you. You consider feeding orphans with tax money evil and yet launching wars of invasion with tax money on false pretexts is A-OK.

You apparently have no difficulty seeing American tax dollars spent on foreign aid that ostensibly goes to prevent those in other countries from dying from starvation, but you do have difficulty seeing American tax dollars spent to prevent those in other countries from being murdered by their rulers.

What, so that we can take control of their resources and then install another unelected government that very well may murder them in the future too?

While providing a quote (one of many, MANY others you could have chosen) showing that the ceasefire is indeed null and void, you choose to quibble over who should give the go ahead to resume. If the ceasefire is null and void, then ANY of the original parties may resume. Note I use the word choose deliberately -- although any of the original coalition had the right to finish up the war the way it should have been finished twelve years ago, none of them had the obligation to do so. They could have waited for the UN to give the green light -- sometime in the NEXT century, if ever.

And you, pinky, as usual, fail to provide ANY references, legitimate or otherwise, to support your argument, which you more or less pulled straight out your ass.

I cannot help but note you avoid commenting on the fact that just because something is "law" it is not automatically correct.

Of course laws are not automatically correct. The issue, which you still fail to grasp, is that the United States does not have the right to impose by fiat on the rest of the world what it thinks IS correct. Either it follows the law or persuades the international community to create a new standard by which to judge its actions. Gee, I thought Libertarians were all for Persuasion over Force.

Not ANY country, no. Any free country.

Define "free country."

Only if they do just that and no more. Liberate the enslaved country, allow the citizens to elect their own non-totalitarian leaders, then withdraw.

In case you haven't been following the news, that's not what the United States is doing. Jay Garner wasn't elected by anybody. Neither were any of the Iraqis-in-exile who have been brought in by the US to take over the reins when the US leaves.


And who decides whether that characterization is accurate or not?

Any country whose government outlaws all other political parties, and indulges in imprisoning and killing people for political and/or racial reasons, and allows no freedom of speech, and has no mechanism by which the people may choose a new government, and follows no objective code of laws protecting the human rights of its citizens, is by definition an illegitimate government, and may be removed.

Oh, I see, so pinky is the one who decides what constitutes tyranny. Thanks for clearing that up for me. By the way, do all of the world leaders know how to contact you so that they may be similarly enlightened? I also notice you're beginning to understand the necessity of democracy ("no mechanism by which the people may choose a new government").

I do not recognize the UN's "right" to decide when such a regime may be removed with the assistance of outside nations, no. Perhaps because they have NEVER made such a decision, and WILL never make such a decision, or perhaps because the UN is such a farcical organization and has been since it was called The League of Nations. The best thing that could happen to international relations is for the US to withdraw from the UN, kick it out of New York and tell it to take it's lame-ass act elsewhere. Switzerland was right to never have joined; too bad other nations didn't follow their lead.

Well, since YOU don't recognize that right, I guess the UN better just head back home with its tail between its legs. Oddly, though, you DO seem to recognize their right to negotiate ceasefire agreements, and you cite their resolutions as justifications to act. As for whether the US remains in the UN or not, that is for Americans such as myself and our representatives to decide. Canadian citizens living in the Dominican Republic needn't apply.

Objective law, yes... not law by the veto of a party with sweetheart oil contracts in the bag.

Objective law . . . you mean that set by a party which has a sweetheart, oil-rich quasi-colony to gain by invading?

Not even your beloved UN has ever tried to PRETEND that Iraq had fulfilled a single one of the conditions of the ceasefire. What "innocence" are you fantasizing about here?

It is still the UN's decision to make whether invasion is justified and legal or not. The question still remains: where are the WMD?

No need to "take on faith" the US government in this case -- as I said, check what the UN has said if you think they are worth listening to. Or talk to any expatriate Iraqi. Or to the head of CNN who "self-censored" the news out of Iraq to maintain his advantage over the competition.

Incoherent rambling. What exactly are you talking about? What point are you trying to make? What, that Saddam was a murderer and a torturer? I certainly don't dispute that. Or are you trying to say that the US will not abuse its power? Unproven, and unproveable.

Don't try to misrepresent my position. I was very careful to point out that due to the unfulfilled conditional ceasefire and the fact that the US and England and Australia and Spain and the rest were participants in the unfinished war, this case is different from a legal perspective than an invasion of Syria or Iran or Cambodia would be.

The ceasefire was negotiated and certified by the UN. Which part of this exactly do you have trouble understanding?

All I pointed out is that in this specific instance your supposed "legal" argument is specious.

You seem to be operating under the belief that what YOU believe is logical and correct is also what is LEGAL. Not at all. Even the Bush administration realized that the support of the UN was necessary to make this action legal and legitimate in the eyes of the world, which is precisely why they sought the UN's sanction. Had they exercised a modicum of patience they might have gotten it too; problem was they had already created a purely fictional spectre of imminent attack by Iraq and then they had to drive that falsehood home by pulling inspectors out before they had a chance to finish the job.

The lengths you go to in order to defend this invasion by the United States is really mind-boggling. For example, I may disagree with Evolving about some things, but his stance against this war was a consistent application of his anti-statist principles, and that makes me respect his principles all the more. Your vehement insistence on the RIGHT of governments to use public money to launch wars with the flimsiest of justifications makes it clear that you're essentially a crypto-rightist.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1520764 - 05/05/03 12:50 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

EchoVortex writes:

So why is okay to use my tax money to drop bombs on people and take their oil and NOT okay to use the same tax money to feed and shelter orphans?

Nice dodge. YOU are the one that says it is moral to force people to "help" others, not me. I have always said it is immoral to force people to help others. But you have no problem limiting which "others" receive help. Why is it okay to help flood victims but not victims of a totalitarian regime?

And if saving Iraqi children is really your concern, why not extend that privilege to all of the children all over the world under the boot of tyrannical rulers?

As I pointed out, it is the right (but not the obligation) of any free country to do just that. Since I do not believe in forcing people to help others, clearly I do not believe in forcing any free country to liberate another. It is up to the country involved to decide for themselves. YOU are the one who believes in the sacred will of the majority, not me. It cannot have escaped your notice that the MAJORITY of Americans were in favor of deposing Hussein.

You consider feeding orphans with tax money evil and yet launching wars of invasion with tax money on false pretexts is A-OK.

What "false pretext"? The international law dude you quoted says the same thing I did -- the ceasefire is invalid.

What, so that we can take control of their resources and then install another unelected government that very well may murder them in the future too?

The Iraqis will elect their own leaders. This won't happen tomorrow or next week or next month, but it will happen. The new government will control Iraq's resources.

And you, pinky, as usual, fail to provide ANY references, legitimate or otherwise, to support your argument, which you more or less pulled straight out your ass.

Did Adam Roberts, professor of international relations at Oxford University, pull the same argument out of his ass?

The issue, which you still fail to grasp, is that the United States does not have the right to impose by fiat on the rest of the world what it thinks IS correct.

Of course it doesn't. However, in this case it broke no law. Resuming hostilities when the opposing party refuses to fulfill the terms of a conditional ceasefire is not a crime -- it is to be expected. The only thing unusual about this case is the length of the ceasefire. It should never have lasted as long as it did. Twelve years is ridiculous.

Gee, I thought Libertarians were all for Persuasion over Force.

Libertarians are all for fulfilling contractual obligations as well.

Define "free country."

Any country which holds regular elections open to many parties, where there is no such thing as imprisoning or killing people for "political" crimes, which has a free press and free speech, and follows an objective code of laws protecting the human rights of its citizens.

Jay Garner wasn't elected by anybody. Neither were any of the Iraqis-in-exile who have been brought in by the US to take over the reins when the US leaves.

Do the words "temporary", "provisional", or "interim" mean anything to you?

Oh, I see, so pinky is the one who decides what constitutes tyranny. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Don't be obtuse. I am not the one who drew up that list. I probably missed a few things, but it's close enough for rock and roll. Which of the characteristics I listed do you disagree with?

I also notice you're beginning to understand the necessity of democracy...

I have never said I objected to having the populace elect representatives to the legislature of a constitutionally limited republic. I merely point out that it is not necessary to select them in that manner in order for a constitutionally limited republic to function properly.

Oddly, though, you DO seem to recognize their right to negotiate ceasefire agreements, and you cite their resolutions as justifications to act.

Actually, no, I do not recognize that right. The UN was not required to "broker" the ceasefire. It could have been handled between the allied forces and the Iraqi forces on their own just as well, and had as much validity. And not once have I ever used a UN resolution as justification for the resumption of hostilities. I have always used the conditional ceasefire as the cornerstone for any resumption of hostilitites. The fact that the ceasefire was also recorded as a UN resolution does not change the fact that it is first and foremost a conditional ceasefire. Ceasefires ended wars long before the UN existed.

Objective law . . . you mean that set by a party which has a sweetheart, oil-rich quasi-colony to gain by invading?

Iraq will no more be a US quasi-colony than Germany or Japan or South Korea or Afghanistan is.

Or are you trying to say that the US will not abuse its power? Unproven, and unproveable.

The US and England and Australia and Spain and others didn't "abuse" their power in this case. Your speculation that they will in the future is unproven and unproveable.

The ceasefire was negotiated and certified by the UN. Which part of this exactly do you have trouble understanding?

The fact that they involved themselves in the process does not invalidate the nature of the agreement. It was a CONDITIONAL ceasefire -- whether negotiated by Jamaica or by Michael Jackson.

You seem to be operating under the belief that what YOU believe is logical and correct is also what is LEGAL.

Not only me. Your quote from Adam Roberts supports what I have said.

Even the Bush administration realized that the support of the UN was necessary to make this action legal and legitimate in the eyes of the world, which is precisely why they sought the UN's sanction.

Incorrect. Bush said from the beginning that they were going to accept the responsibility for finishing the job regardless of who else wanted to hop on board. He invited other countries to join, but made it clear Hussein would be deposed regardless. Of course it would be nice to have everyone on board, but it wasn't necessary to give the action legitimacy. If it was wrong to resume hostilities, it was wrong no matter how many people said it was right.

Your vehement insistence on the RIGHT of governments to use public money to launch wars with the flimsiest of justifications makes it clear that you're essentially a crypto-rightist.

And your insistence that no one has the right to interfere with what a genocidal totalitarian thug does within his own borders makes your stance on the right of governments to force their citizens to "help" other in third world countries just a tad hypocritical, does it not? As a closing note, I find it illuminating that you characterize genocide as "the flimsiest of justifications".

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Phred]
    #1520811 - 05/05/03 01:03 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I can't help but note that there are many here who seem convinced that since there were no voting booths flown into Baghdad on April 9th, there never will be. It seems to me that any rational person should be able to grasp the necessity of an interim authority to handle the transition between decades of totalitarian rule and a new Iraqi government.

Here's an interesting take on the matter I came across yesterday:

Delay democracy in Iraq

Washington Times May 2, 2003
Jonah Goldberg

I think the last thing Iraq needs is democracy.

I guess that sounds funny because I've been pounding my shoe on the table in favor of democratizing Iraq for a couple years now. So when I say that the last thing Iraq needs is democracy, I don't mean it shouldn't have it, I mean elections should be the last on a long list of priorities for Iraq.

Without law, order and civil society, democracy is mobocracy.

In the United States we've fetishized democracy to the point where it means essentially "all good things." If something is bad, it must be undemocratic. But this sentiment runs completely counter to the intent of the US Constitution.

The founders were just as afraid of too much democracy ? the tyranny of the majority ? as they were of too little ? the tyranny of the minority.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were designed to limit and constrain the excesses of democracy. This is why the federal judiciary is the least democratic branch of government, with lifetime appointments for judges largely immune from congressional meddling. (This may also explain why the judiciary is the most respected branch of our government according to polls.)

In principle, the Constitution protects my individual rights against the entire country. If everyone voted to say Jonah Goldberg had no right to free speech, the Supreme Court would tell the whole country to stuff it. Of course, in practice, this principle has been folded, spindled and mutilated from time to time over the last two centuries. But that's a subject for another column.

The point is that the most important guarantees for freedom do not come from the ballot box; instead, they come from a series of laws and customs that respect individual rights.

In a pure democracy, 51 percent of the people can vote to do whatever they want to 49 percent of the people ? which is one of the reasons why, even if slaves had had the right to vote in, say, 1825, there'd still have been slavery in the South.

Anyway, this is a point sorely misunderstood in Iraq and in America. Right now Shiite militants ? many backed by Iran ? are clamoring for immediate elections because they think democracy is simply a means of grabbing power by lever-pulling or ballot-casting.

The Shiite clerics have figured out that since they comprise 60 percent of the population, they should win an election and then have the right to impose a theocratic regime on 100 percent of the country. This would be an Arab version of "one man, one vote, one time" ? the saying that describes how so many African "democrats" become lifetime dictators the moment they're elected.

The relative popularity of the Shiite clerics demonstrates another thing that is lacking in Iraq: a real civil society. A layman's definition of civil society is all that gunk between the state and the individual: community groups, churches, mosques, softball leagues, professional and trade associations, neighborhood councils, gardening clubs, women's groups, etc.

British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke called these sorts of things the "little platoons" that make a society healthy. They fill the so-called public square and solve most of the problems of everyday life that are not the government's business.

In Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the public square was a corrupt and dangerous place. Schools were ordered to teach propaganda about Saddam Hussein first, and the three R's a distant second. Children whose parents wouldn't let them join the Baathist Party were thrown into a pee-wee gulag, sometimes for years. Homes were secretly bugged; if you laughed at a joke about Saddam, you were pulled from your family and tortured. Even the joy of sports was removed. Saddam Hussein's son had members of the state soccer team beaten for losing a match.

Under Saddam, the Shiite clergy were brutalized precisely because they were an alternative source of moral authority to the Baath Party. Once the Baath regime fell, party bureaucrats who prevented civil society from functioning lost all legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Saddam had sanitized the public square of everything but his own statues. When those statues fell, the religious Shiite zealots not only gained legitimacy, they lost all competition. Sure, they could be elected into office today, but that would amount to trading one dictatorship for another.

The trick for the United States is to stay in Iraq not only long enough to build up the laws, courts and markets necessary for a successful society, but long enough for the society itself to regenerate.

This means giving people time to see themselves not merely as Shia or Sunni, but as businessmen and soccer fans and a million other things that make people appreciate liberty. These little platoons are the real antibodies against the disease of tyranny, because they prevent any one institution ? religion and state included ? from commanding the total loyalty of the people.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with having religion represented in the long-sanitized public square. But it will only be time to vote when that square is filled with a crowd and the clerics are one voice among many.

****************************************************************

Comments, anyone?

pinky



--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Phred]
    #1522688 - 05/05/03 07:53 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Nice dodge. YOU are the one that says it is moral to force people to "help" others, not me. I have always said it is immoral to force people to help others. But you have no problem limiting which "others" receive help. Why is it okay to help flood victims but not victims of a totalitarian regime?

What is there to dodge? Simply because I believe the use of public money to help the defenseless is legitimate doesn't mean a nation has the obligation to help anybody and everybody in every single way, and this is especially the case if that "help" involves blowing many of them to pieces, occupying their country (even if only "provisionally", whatever that means), putting our own servicepeople in harm's way, adding to the threats against our own nation's security, and making the world a more unstable place by shredding the diplomatic order to pieces. There is, however, a blatant contradiction in your argument that it is NOT moral to use public money to help people, but it somehow becomes okay if that help takes the form of military action and invasion. Maybe you could explain that one.

As I pointed out, it is the right (but not the obligation) of any free country to do just that. Since I do not believe in forcing people to help others, clearly I do not believe in forcing any free country to liberate another. It is up to the country involved to decide for themselves. YOU are the one who believes in the sacred will of the majority, not me. It cannot have escaped your notice that the MAJORITY of Americans were in favor of deposing Hussein.

Those of us who oppose the war ARE being forced to pay for it. In any event, the people of the United States, majority or not, have no more right to play God to the rest of the world than our government does. AT THE VERY LEAST, there should be a consensus of the free world on an action such as this, yet it cannot have escaped YOUR notice that the majority of the citizens in the free world (even of the nations whose government were part of the coalition) opposed the US in this action.

What "false pretext"? The international law dude you quoted says the same thing I did -- the ceasefire is invalid.

You need new reading glasses, pinky. He said the ceasefire is "called into question." There is a semantic difference between that and saying that it is invalid, period. If you are incapable of drawing such distinctions in meaning, I'm afraid I can do little to help you. The second expert, Colin Warbick, states explicitly that "It is for the Security Council to decide what action to take." In any event, the false pretext I was refering to was the so-called "evidence" that Iraq possessed significant quantities of WMD and was ready to deploy them at a moment's notice.

The Iraqis will elect their own leaders. This won't happen tomorrow or next week or next month, but it will happen. The new government will control Iraq's resources.

And you know this because . . . your second cousin is a fortune teller? The blind faith you have in the Bush administation is quite touching in a way. What, did W. send you a Christmas card or something? The Bush administration will never allow truly free elections as long as they believe an Islamicist government has a chance of winning. It's interesting that you write this and then immediately post some nonsense from the Moonie snotrag Washington Times about "delaying democracy" so that civil society has a chance to form. Tell you what: put the question to a referendum in Iraq and I'll buy it. "Should we continue occupying your country so that we can teach you benighted fools how to build a civil society, or should we just get the hell out?" If the Iraqis vote for the US to stay, I'll be all for it.

Did Adam Roberts, professor of international relations at Oxford University, pull the same argument out of his ass?

No, but your misquote of what he said came out of yours.

Libertarians are all for fulfilling contractual obligations as well.

But you've just been arguing that resuming hostilities was (in your words) NOT "an obligation" but rather a "right." I argue it was neither.

Do the words "temporary", "provisional", or "interim" mean anything to you?

That depends on who is using them and in what context. Promises from politicians in general "mean" very little to me. I'm surprised to find you of all people so credulous.

Don't be obtuse. I am not the one who drew up that list. I probably missed a few things, but it's close enough for rock and roll. Which of the characteristics I listed do you disagree with?

I, personally, do not disagree with your definition. The problem is, I wasn't asking you for your definition. I was asking you by what process that definition is to agreed upon and taken as a standard. You still haven't answered the question.

I have never said I objected to having the populace elect representatives to the legislature of a constitutionally limited republic. I merely point out that it is not necessary to select them in that manner in order for a constitutionally limited republic to function properly.

It's not necessary? Then why did you list it in your very own definition of the requirements of a "free country"? Maybe you should sort all of this out in your own mind before you post again.

Actually, no, I do not recognize that right. The UN was not required to "broker" the ceasefire. It could have been handled between the allied forces and the Iraqi forces on their own just as well, and had as much validity. And not once have I ever used a UN resolution as justification for the resumption of hostilities. I have always used the conditional ceasefire as the cornerstone for any resumption of hostilitites. The fact that the ceasefire was also recorded as a UN resolution does not change the fact that it is first and foremost a conditional ceasefire. Ceasefires ended wars long before the UN existed.

Nice try, but wrong again. What you are saying might hold true if this was a direct conflict between the US and Iraq, but Iraq did not attack the United States in the first Gulf War. Neither was Kuwait part of a mutual defense alliance with the United States. The VERY PARTICIPATION OF THE UNITED STATES AS A COMBATANT was under the aegis of the United Nations Security Council from the word "go." The US's participation was officially a "police action" sanctioned by the UNSC--if it weren't, it would have had to have been declared a war by the US Congress.

Iraq will no more be a US quasi-colony than Germany or Japan or South Korea or Afghanistan is.

Silly me, I didn't realize that Truman was still President. And I didn't realize that the US military had left Afghanistan--what, did that just happen yesterday? Well, I guess even if it hasn't happened yet, your fortune-telling second cousin must have told you it would.

The US and England and Australia and Spain and others didn't "abuse" their power in this case. Your speculation that they will in the future is unproven and unproveable.

By riding roughshod over the rest of the free world in this case, they certainly don't inspire confidence and trust in their future actions.

Incorrect. Bush said from the beginning that they were going to accept the responsibility for finishing the job regardless of who else wanted to hop on board. He invited other countries to join, but made it clear Hussein would be deposed regardless. Of course it would be nice to have everyone on board, but it wasn't necessary to give the action legitimacy. If it was wrong to resume hostilities, it was wrong no matter how many people said it was right.

Wrong. Once again, it was for the UN Security Council to decide, for the reasons have I stated above.

And your insistence that no one has the right to interfere with what a genocidal totalitarian thug does within his own borders makes your stance on the right of governments to force their citizens to "help" other in third world countries just a tad hypocritical, does it not? As a closing note, I find it illuminating that you characterize genocide as "the flimsiest of justifications".

Ah yes, the old pinky tactic of insinuating that your interlocutor has a soft spot for totalitariansim, genocide, what have you. Weak, pinky, a really weak excuse for solid argumentation. There may very well be cases in which the international community would be justified in going into a country to stop atrocities--but the only way such actions can have legitimacy is if there is at least some kind of consensus--not unanimity by any means, but consensus--among the community of nations. At the very least, there should be a consensus among free nations, following your admirable definition of that term. There was no such consensus in this case, the legal justification for war was shaky at best, illegal at worst, and the evidence to support Iraq's non-compliance on WMD was exaggerated at best, fabricated at worst. The long-term consequences of this dubiously motivated and incompetently rationalized intervention have yet to be seen, but what IS clear at this point is that the majority of the citizens of the free world consider the current US regime to be the major threat to peace in the world today, and, if they had their druthers, would like to see regime change in the US next. This is not how I, for one, spell "success."


Edited by EchoVortex (05/05/03 08:19 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineJohnnyRespect
Nomadic Wanderer
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 676
Loc: East Coast
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Sombie]
    #1522711 - 05/05/03 08:05 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I think that you pro-warrers are idiots!  We haven't found the WMD's because their aren't any! It's not as if saddam has been hiding them for 12 years from the inspectors who were looking through his country! that never happened! Good old Peaceloving Buddha-head Saddam destroyed all those weapons that the US forced him to use in the war we made him start iwth Iran, and by golly he just lost the records of it.  I can't believe you people thought we'd find the weapons! Bush probably gave more WMD's to Osama so he could use them in America and make bush look better!  Geez, don't you know anything? I'm surprised we've even tried to look for WMd's with all the bajillions of gallons of oil we are stealing from Iraq, don'tcha know thats the only reason we went over there! Spending 80 billion dollars to get a crappy rinky-dink oil producing country makes sense to me! Fuck Bush1 Impeach Bush! He never really won the election!


Wow, all that pinko crap in only one paragraph :smile:

jr


--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1523414 - 05/06/03 12:50 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

EchoVortex writes:

AT THE VERY LEAST, there should be a consensus of the free world on an action such as this, yet it cannot have escaped YOUR notice that the majority of the citizens in the free world (even of the nations whose government were part of the coalition) opposed the US in this action.

I ask again, then -- if it was wrong for the US and England and Australia and Spain et al to resume hostilities, does it not remain wrong regardless of how many countries say it is right?

And you know this because . . . your second cousin is a fortune teller?

And you know this won't happen because... your second cousin is a fortune teller?

But you've just been arguing that resuming hostilities was (in your words) NOT "an obligation" but rather a "right." I argue it was neither.

I was referring to Hussein's obligations to fulfill the conditions of the ceasefire.

That depends on who is using them and in what context. Promises from politicians in general "mean" very little to me.

So you assert -- with merely your personal bias as "evidence" -- that the Iraqi people will never run Iraq; that it will instead remain a "colony" of the US?

I, personally, do not disagree with your definition. The problem is, I wasn't asking you for your definition. I was asking you by what process that definition is to agreed upon and taken as a standard.

If you and I -- who disagree on nearly everything else of substance -- are in agreement on the criteria, why do you think any other body of reasonable people would not be, regardless of who might comprise the members of that body?

And I didn't realize that the US military had left Afghanistan--what, did that just happen yesterday? Well, I guess even if it hasn't happened yet, your fortune-telling second cousin must have told you it would.

So you claim Afghanistan is a "quasi-colony" of the United States? By what criteria?

There may very well be cases in which the international community would be justified in going into a country to stop atrocities--but the only way such actions can have legitimacy is if there is at least some kind of consensus--not unanimity by any means, but consensus--among the community of nations.

I ask for the third time -- if an action is wrong, by what magical process does the approval of a certain threshhold number of people transform it into something right?

There was no such consensus in this case, the legal justification for war was shaky at best, illegal at worst...

Look, we got into this whole sub-thread because you are of the opinion that the war contravened "International Law". There are intelligent people arguing both sides of that issue. You say your guys are right, I say your guys are wrong. Despite my general distaste for the quality of analysis at CNN, every now and then they come up a balanced view of things --

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/17/war.legal.case/

I suggest interested readers review this article and decide for themselves which side presents the more compelling case.

pinky


--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (05/06/03 12:53 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineJohnnyRespect
Nomadic Wanderer
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 676
Loc: East Coast
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Phred]
    #1523946 - 05/06/03 09:11 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

The Al-Samoud missiles saddam had, and used during his decimation, were illegal and banned by three UN resolutions. He had them, he used them, he violated, he faced the *ahem* "severe consequences". tough shit, get over it. He's dead.



--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,286
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Where are the weapons? - Putin [Re: Johan Shultz]
    #1524026 - 05/06/03 10:07 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Sorry to bring up old posts, havent checked the thread in a few days...

"Gorbachev released all political prisoners more then 10 years ago."


"And there are more independent newspapers in Moscow then in the rest of the world"

The first one is so off base its not funny...Amnesty International says there's hundreds of prisoners of consience in Russia. And sure, theres some independent newspapers. But they're muzzled by Putin. He vetoes any stories he doesnt like.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 500,000 iraqi children dead because of US sanctions. Albright: "The Price Is Worth It"...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
exclusive58 8,885 79 11/09/05 07:42 AM
by GazzBut
* Putin: U.S. Provokes Countries to Seek Nuclear Weapons
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
DiploidM 13,916 174 02/19/07 08:05 PM
by Basilides
* Do you think sanctions work? SirTripAlot 1,697 11 01/13/07 01:38 AM
by astralplaynes
* causes of violence. national, and international. BleaK 610 11 08/12/04 01:46 PM
by AbstractHarmonix
* Putin Answers Disco Cat 902 3 09/12/07 08:57 PM
by Disco Cat
* Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist wingnutx 1,033 2 01/29/14 06:52 AM
by theindianrepublic
* U.S. Announces Sanctions Against Iran
Too Vanilla
508 1 10/25/07 04:44 PM
by Too Vanilla
* "Putin speech appears to link U.S., Nazi policies"
( 1 2 3 all )
Disco Cat 4,954 44 05/20/07 03:20 PM
by fireworks_god

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,000 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.041 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 17 queries.