Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2266739 -

Alex123 said:
May be to you but that's nothing like what it means under law. All a ceasefire is offering to "ACCEPT" terms. That doesn't even mean you have to put them into practise - you are simply accepting them. Certainly the UN resolution that defined the terms of the ceasefire had nothing to do with invading Iraq.


Actually, it's exactly how it is under the law. I don't think that many people here really like you, and the ones I've spoken to in private say that it's because you constantly ignore points that are very relavent to discussion and de-rail threads with your own (unsubstantiated) beliefs.

So, to encourage you to prove them wrong, I'd like you to read the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998". You'll recall that neither Bush nor Cheney were in office (at the federal level) then, so nothing in there is due to the obvious grasp for the trillions of tons of oil thats we've seized (and just where IS all of this oil?)

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm
-----
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
-----


Also, another interesting article describing the legal implications of a cease-fire agreement
http://www.southend.wayne.edu/days/2003/February/2272003/oped/cease/cease.html
-----
A peace agreement is the formal end of a war between two or more warring countries. A cease-fire is nothing more than a cessation of military action based upon certain conditions, in order to possibly reach a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. During a cease-fire, hostilities still exist between the signing nations and peace is neither achieved nor guaranteed. If either side violates the cease-fire, the opposing nation may resume military attacks at any time.

Since 1991, a cessation of hostilities has existed between the United States and Iraq, according to the cease-fire agreed to by the Iraqi and United States governments and presented to Congress by former President Bush on May 17, 1991.

-----

And just to cover all of my bases, the actual cease-fire agreement is locoated at ...
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/papers/1991/91051704.html
-----
Resolution 687 required, as a precondition for a formal cease-fire, that Iraq officially notify the United Nations of its acceptance of the provisions of the resolution. These provisions included: (1) respect for the international boundary as agreed between Iraq and Kuwait in 1963, which the Security Council guaranteed; (2) the creation of a demilitarized zone along the Iraq-Kuwait border and the deployment of a U.N. observer unit into that zone; (3) the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and nuclear-weapons-usable material, together with facilities related to them, and international supervision and inspection to verify compliance; (4) the creation of a fund, drawn from future Iraqi oil revenues, to pay compensation for losses caused by the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait; (5) the continuation of the embargo of all exports of arms to Iraq; (6) the phased relaxation of certain other aspects of the U.N. sanctions against Iraq as Iraq complies with its obligations under the resolution; and (7) the renunciation by Iraq of support for international terrorism.

Iraq officially accepted those terms on April 6, and a formal cease-fire has gone into effect. Accordingly, United States Armed Forces deployed in southern Iraq began withdrawing as U.N. peacekeeping personnel deployed into the zone, and this withdrawal was completed on May 9. The United States has been assisting the U.N. Secretary General in his efforts to implement the other provisions of Resolution 687, particularly with respect to boundary demarcation, compensation, and weapons of mass destruction.
---

In your post you claimed that 'accepting' them doesn't mean that you will put the terms into practise. This is actually a crock of bullshit, but lets go with it for the purposes of drawing your argument from the cloak of ignorance into the bright light of knowledge. If one party is allowed to accept the terms of a cease-fire, but not abide by them, and that seems acceptable to you, then lets just say that Bush II decided to accept the terms, but not abide by them, and thus, we took over Iraq. Hey, if they can accept, but not abide, then we can too, and, since you are a reasonable objective person who is open to new things and certaintly not the type that would contradict yourself, you'll have to agree right? We'll see :-)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2266743 -

Alex123 said:
Saddam signed a cease-fire agreement that we proposed

No he didn't. Try and find this "ceasefire" for me.  What you'll find is a UN resolution. It's called UN resolution 687. All it calls on Iraq to do is "unconditionally accept" terms. That's how these things work - all a country is called on to do when they sign the ceasefire is to "accept" the terms. Think about that - it's important. 



Read my previous post :smile: It's all there, including how Iraq ACCEPTED the terms, offically. :-)  I wish we could make a special smiley face that "luvdemshrooms", "mushmaster' and I could use when we catch you in a lie, or being totally factually incorrect :-)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2266762 -

No he didn't. Try and find this "ceasefire" for me. What you'll find is a UN resolution. It's called UN resolution 687. All it calls on Iraq to do is "unconditionally accept" terms. That's how these things work - all a country is called on to do when they sign the ceasefire is to "accept" the terms. Think about that - it's important.

you've said that before, and i've always been confused by it. the terms of the 687 (the ceasefire) included prohibitions of WMD's and provisions for inspections. iraq may have "agreed" to it with their words, but not their actions. agreement means more than just a signature on a peice of paper. am i missing something?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Azmodeus]
    #2266769 -

Azmodeus said:
Can you admit the opportunity for corruption in americas government? in the new homeland security legislation? how do you 'trust' them not to abuse this power as most every person with power has done since the dawn of our existance?



I don't think that their is as much chance for corruption in American gov't as their is in other govt's around the world. The PATRIOT act only applies to non-resident aliens. Most every person with power has abused it? I don't think so. People like Saddam, Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, Atilla the Hun, they abuse power.
Quote:
If you can admit the possiblity, then you can see how liberating a country like iraq seems more like a hidden agenda and less like an genuine concern about terrorists and americas safety.



I don't follow that logic at all. Because our government could be passing legislation that is designed to intentionally impinge upon the rights of America, attacking Iraq is a hidden agenda? Where do you draw the connection, because "they" have supposedly lied about the PATRIOT act and other such things, they'd lie about this? I don't think that is a very logically sound conclusion. If someone were in charge and their sole goal was to restrict American rights, they would focus only on that, not funnel billions of dollars into another war that is actually, most likely, going to be beneficial to America.
Quote:
The whole agument of broken ceasefire= resumption of hostility reminds me of a child hitting a man, and the man then beats this child to a bloody pulp in the name of self defense. They didn't even resume force, but i guess thats not enough for manly america. Heaven forbid they be the better nation and lead by example....find an alternate solution to force?



No, they didn't RESUME force, they broke the agreement that STOPPED the use of force. Lets use your example, shall we? Lets say that my child hits me because he is mad, I then grab him by the shirt and say "Do not do that again, or i'm going to spank you!", he says "OK, I wont' do that again, because I understand that if I do, you will spank me". Then, he hits me again. He has been warned of the consequences, I'm not depriving him of any quality that would better his life (that is to say, forbidding him from hitting me isn't like forbidding him from eating, or breathing), and most of all, he AGREED to it. This actually isn't even the best analogy I could come up with, so let me create another one.

Lets say that said child is going around the neighorhood with a baseball bat hitting minority children. The police catch him, arrest him, and he is sent to trial. The judge is lenient on the child and says "If you promise NOT to go out and continue your assault on minorities, we'll defer prosecution for one year. If, in that year, you haven't assaulted any more minorities, we'll drop charges". The person agrees and the next day, beats a man with a bat. Should
charges be resumed?
Quote:
Another instance if albiet irrelevent is the beef scares. America immediately closed thier boarders to our beef, yet when reversed, canadian officals decided to wait for test results knowing border closures would drastically effect local markets down south.


Well that settles it! Bush is a tyrant and is using the PATRIOT act to further his vision of 1984 in America!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2266774 -

he PATRIOT act only applies to non-resident aliens.

you sure about that?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2266780 -

mushmaster said:
he PATRIOT act only applies to non-resident aliens.

you sure about that?


I had thought that it did. I admit that I could be incorrect about it. If I am incorrect, I apologize.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2266785 -

I admit that I could be incorrect about it.

i'm afraid you are.  :sad:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2266793 -

"I don't think that their is as much chance for corruption in American gov't as their is in other govt's around the world. The PATRIOT act only applies to non-resident aliens. Most every person with power has abused it? I don't think so. People like Saddam, Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, Atilla the Hun, they abuse power."

too bad. arbitrary opinion has no place in politics. You can't prove "that their is as much chance for corruption in American gov't as their is in other govt's around the world." Why wouldn't the most powerful, and least experienced country ( marvelous that they have both counts there ), be more prone to corruption? like bees to honey, or bacteria to most nutrients, corruption swarms to where the most money is.



"I don't follow that logic at all. Because our government could be passing legislation that is designed to intentionally impinge upon the rights of America, attacking Iraq is a hidden agenda? Where do you draw the connection, because "they" have supposedly lied about the PATRIOT act and other such things, they'd lie about this? I don't think that is a very logically sound conclusion. If someone were in charge and their sole goal was to restrict American rights, they would focus only on that, not funnel billions of dollars into another war that is actually, most likely, going to be beneficial to America."

Who said they're just trying to restrict America's rights? The PATRIOT act has nothing to do with what he's saying- He's talking about corporate greed here. We take Iraq- we control the oil ( you keep repeating WHAT OIL?? MY GAS STILL COSTS THE SAME!!! It's not a matter of actually giving >us< any oil, that would be costly- rather, it's about controlling one of the world's most important sources of oil, which is one of the most important resources right now. Oil = mucho money $$$, not for you- for the government


"Lets say that said child is going around the neighorhood with a baseball bat hitting minority children. The police catch him, arrest him, and he is sent to trial. The judge is lenient on the child and says "If you promise NOT to go out and continue your assault on minorities, we'll defer prosecution for one year. If, in that year, you haven't assaulted any more minorities, we'll drop charges". The person agrees and the next day, beats a man with a bat. Should
charges be resumed?"

rofl this one made me laugh. hitting minority children.. ah... ( that distinction is most amusing ) Oh well. New charges for a new crime, wouldn't you say? The court order specifically mentions minorities.. what a silly court order mind you. Actually this analagy doesn't make sense. You dropped his because it was inconvenient, and created a similar, but useless one

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2266812 -

Morrowind said:
too bad. arbitrary opinion has no place in politics. You can't prove "that their is as much chance for corruption in American gov't as their is in other govt's around the world."



I'd actually say that American politics has LESS chance for corruption, since it's mandated that no one person can be in charge for more than 8 years.
Quote:
Why wouldn't the most powerful, and least experienced country ( marvelous that they have both counts there ), be more prone to corruption? like bees to honey, or bacteria to most nutrients, corruption swarms to where the most money is.



Odd, then, how more third world nations have corruption than American politics. Prove this vast conspiracy, oh, oh, i've even got a name! The "vast right wing conspiracy" that goes around spilling presidential semen on poor innocent girls dressed to implicate them! right? that one?
Quote:
Who said they're just trying to restrict America's rights? The PATRIOT act has nothing to do with what he's saying- He's talking about corporate greed here.



Nothing in "his" post mentions corporate greed. It discusses first the opportunity for corruption related to the new homeland security laws, then it discusses the invasion of Iraq. Where did he mention large corporate greed?
Quote:
We take Iraq- we control the oil ( you keep repeating WHAT OIL?? MY
GAS STILL COSTS THE SAME!!! It's not a matter of actually giving >us< any oil, that would be costly- rather, it's about controlling one of the world's most important sources of oil, which is one of the most important resources right now. Oil = mucho money $$$, not for you- for the government



Oh, I see, so thats why our economy is doing so much better. Since I like numbers so much, could you demonstrate how this oil is making our government richer? I'd like to see that somewhere. Is our national debt smaller? Oh, since it's "the government" that is getting richer, you'll need to start showing all of the oil money with a negative number, since we spend so many billions to get it. HAve we earned that back? are we in the process of it? if so, show me how. Where is this magical oil/money/gas coming from, and where is it going to?
Quote:
rofl this one made me laugh. hitting minority children.. ah... ( that distinction is most amusing ) Oh well. New charges for a new crime, wouldn't you say?



I would indeed say that, and I'd also say that he would be punished for the first case.
Quote:
The court order specifically mentions minorities.. what a silly court order mind you. Actually this analagy doesn't make sense. You dropped his because it was inconvenient, and created a similar, but useless one


If you use a process that is called "Reading", you'll see that I used his analogy first, then made ANOTHER one. So I didn't drop his, I used his and you totally ignored it. *looks up*, yup, I don't see you replying to that at all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2266829 -

point 1- the government system in America was a good one- was. Those checks and balances become negligible with the introduction of major parties with a fundamentally similar goal of keeping the peace within America while making a good living for themselves.



"Odd, then, how more third world nations have corruption than American politics. Prove this vast conspiracy, oh, oh, i've even got a name! The "vast right wing conspiracy" that goes around spilling presidential semen on poor innocent girls dressed to implicate them! right? that one?"

I never called it a conspiracy, and you actually have a valid point there. Yes, third world nations tend to have corruption- that's largely because of any aid they're given and the expectations put on them to get. My point is not in showing other countries have corruption, the topic is America. America has shitloads of corruption, can you agree to that? Oh, and please stfu, never call me a democrat, fuck you



"Nothing in "his" post mentions corporate greed. It discusses first the opportunity for corruption related to the new homeland security laws, then it discusses the invasion of Iraq. Where did he mention large corporate greed?"

Before that he stated the number one reason for invading Iraq was for its oil. I mention corporate greed, because our government is corrupt because of it. I am not him. Whoopssie, i take it back if thats not what he meant- now stop arguing what he said and argue what I'm saying

"

Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Morrowind]
#2266812 - 01/23/04 09:27 PM
Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply

Quote:
Morrowind said:
too bad. arbitrary opinion has no place in politics. You can't prove "that their is as much chance for corruption in American gov't as their is in other govt's around the world."



I'd actually say that American politics has LESS chance for corruption, since it's mandated that no one person can be in charge for more than 8 years.

Quote:

Why wouldn't the most powerful, and least experienced country ( marvelous that they have both counts there ), be more prone to corruption? like bees to honey, or bacteria to most nutrients, corruption swarms to where the most money is.



Odd, then, how more third world nations have corruption than American politics. Prove this vast conspiracy, oh, oh, i've even got a name! The "vast right wing conspiracy" that goes around spilling presidential semen on poor innocent girls dressed to implicate them! right? that one?

Quote:

Who said they're just trying to restrict America's rights? The PATRIOT act has nothing to do with what he's saying- He's talking about corporate greed here.



Nothing in "his" post mentions corporate greed. It discusses first the opportunity for corruption related to the new homeland security laws, then it discusses the invasion of Iraq. Where did he mention large corporate greed?




"Oh, I see, so thats why our economy is doing so much better. Since I like numbers so much, could you demonstrate how this oil is making our government richer? I'd like to see that somewhere. Is our national debt smaller? Oh, since it's "the government" that is getting richer, you'll need to start showing all of the oil money with a negative number, since we spend so many billions to get it. HAve we earned that back? are we in the process of it? if so, show me how. Where is this magical oil/money/gas coming from, and where is it going to?"


has nothing to do with economy as of yet, has everything to do with controlling the flow of oil. I see I have to do this point by point- do you agree that we control the flow of oil out of Iraq? Rather, not the government, the oil corporations that back it. hell, they're both led by the same people


yea i noticed this:
"No, they didn't RESUME force, they broke the agreement that STOPPED the use of force. Lets use your example, shall we? Lets say that my child hits me because he is mad, I then grab him by the shirt and say "Do not do that again, or i'm going to spank you!", he says "OK, I wont' do that again, because I understand that if I do, you will spank me". Then, he hits me again. He has been warned of the consequences, I'm not depriving him of any quality that would better his life (that is to say, forbidding him from hitting me isn't like forbidding him from eating, or breathing), and most of all, he AGREED to it. This actually isn't even the best analogy I could come up with, so let me create another one."

you abandoned it because it makes no fucking sense. Ok, so you now proceed to beat the child into a bloody pulp and justify it with warning. no shit that's not the best analogy, you actually call that critical thinking?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2266835 -

note to self: never copy and paste when using quick reply

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2267329 -

I don't think that many people here really like you

Pretty rich coming from a guy who'se been banned god knows how many times. Lysergic, Johnnyrespect, enimaprty etc. The name may change, the bullshit stays the same.

Check out my ratings. Apart from a few neocons who take things very personally I seem pretty well liked. Seems to be a habit of yours - making up a fantasy, then convincing yourself it's true.

Incidentally why get all childish and personal about this? Is this some personality trait of neocons? Apart from Randall every neocon I come across on this board always gets his panties in a twist. What is it in your characters that means you can't argue a point like grown ups?

and the ones I've spoken to in private

Try speaking to a VARIETY of people. Not just ones who agree with you. That's how you learn.

If either side violates the cease-fire, the opposing nation may resume military attacks at any time.

:lol:

Fucking hell is this the best evidence you've got? A letter sent by a student to a University paper? That's "proof" to you is it? READ MORE ON THE SUBJECT. Don't just jump to conclusions and then desperately look round for bizarre letters from unknown students to back your position. He only knows the same as you man - he's making it up not stating fact.

Read what article 42 of the UN charter says about enforcing UN resolutions - you'll learn who is responsible for doing so and what it takes to "restart" a war.

Iraq officially accepted those terms  

Yes I know, I told you that half a dozen posts ago. What is your point? I bet you'd never heard of UN resolution 687 before I told you about it had you? You thought there was a "ceasefire" agreement laying around that said "If they don't obey every term forever and ever we get to invade them straightaway" didn't you? A lot of neocons seem to get confused by this.

And just to cover all of my bases,

Cover them all? You havn't covered one.

Find me where 687 states war can be unilaterally resumed by Bush if the "terms" of the ceasefire are alleged to have been broken. Shouldn't be too hard seeing as you've "covered all your bases"  :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2267365 -

you've said that before, and i've always been confused by it. the terms of the 687 (the ceasefire) included prohibitions of WMD's and provisions for inspections.

It's an important legal point mush. "Accepting terms" of UN resolution isn't the same thing as "If in 12 years time Bush thinks you havn't complied the US can unilaterally restart the war". It's not even close.

It may be a laymans understanding to think "If they signed a UN resolution that means we have the right to unilaterally restart the war at anytime" but nothing could be furthur from the truth. Again - this is one of those subjects that it's useful to know a little about the law on.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2267920 -

if the resolution was a cease-fire (it was, right?), and it had terms in it that hussein agreed to, but didn't abide by, it would seem to me that the cease-fire becomes null and void and hostilities resume. that's what a cease-fire is, no?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2267960 -

Nope.

It's a bit more complicated than that mush. Especially when your "ceasefire" consists of a UN resolution.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2267961 -

nope about which part?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2267967 -

All of it. That simply isn't how ceasefires work. Certainly none that involve UN resolutions

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2267973 -

see... i thought it was. a cease-fire is an agreement to suspend active hostilities. if there are conditions attached, and one party to the cease-fire violates them, the other may resume hostilities. that is what a cease-fire is, right? what is a cease-fire if not that?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: ]
    #2267985 -

Check up on Article 42 of the UN charter.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: US running scared of Iraq elections [Re: Xlea321]
    #2267995 -

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


i see. basically, it was a UN cease-fire, and it was up to the UN to decide whether or not to use force in an event of a breach of the terms, not the US?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Support US war on IRAQ
( 1 2 all )		 LordMorham 4,796 29 09/20/02 09:56 AM
by LordMorham
* Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion
( 1 2 3 all )		 Xochitl 6,706 43 06/22/06 05:15 PM
by Phred
* Botulinum found in Iraq probably came from US Edame 602 1 10/17/03 02:16 PM
by Xlea321
* Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 RonoS 1,093 10 09/26/02 11:00 PM
by Phred
* Nader got Bush elected bullshit LearyfanS 1,594 17 09/20/03 11:50 AM
by shakta
* It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq. RonoS 2,545 12 09/27/02 12:03 AM
by downforpot
* To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq:
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 JohnnyRespect 5,215 70 06/30/03 05:17 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Blix: Iraq had no WMD since 1991
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Xlea321 7,028 106 09/23/03 03:43 PM
by infidelGOD

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,407 topic views. 3 members, 543 guests and 47 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.