|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Sanity check [Re: Xlea321]
#2568027 - 04/16/04 01:52 PM (19 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
What relevance has any of this?
LOL!
Lets get back to the point.
Yes, Alex. Let's get back to the point.
Since you seem incapable of understanding anything on your own, instead relying on cherrypicked "experts" (appeal to authority) to tell you which opinion you should hold, I guess the following excerpts are, to you, irrelevant and without a point --
"...Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)..."
Member States. Not "The Security Council", but Member States.
"...all necessary means..."
All necessary means includes military force, Alex.
"Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq..."
Obligations, Alex. Not just "sign it and ignore it".
"...Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq..."
There we have the other unfulfilled obligations I refer to constantly which you (and GazzBut and others) always ignore, just as you ignore the fact that Iraq was required not only to provide credible and verifiable proof of the destruction of their WMD stockpiles, but also of their WMD programs.
"...Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein..."
The war wasn't over, Alex. There was a provisional ceasefire.
"...the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance..."
As I said, GazzBut, it was not up to Hussein to determine compliance.
I'm just a humble left-winger Hag, I'll go with the judgement of the Professor of International Law.
Yes, of course. A single professor. Just as you have gone in the past with the judgment of numerous other dubious "experts"-- in world history, automobile safety, the abolition of slavery, infant mortality rates, etc.
If you are unwilling or unable to expend the effort to think for yourself for fear of making a gross fundamental error in understanding, but instead prefer others to do your thinking for you, why should anyone take seriously any of the secondhand opinions you express in this forum?
What is the exact procedure you use to decide which "expert" should be chosen to brainwash you? Do you flip a coin and say, "If it's heads I go with the loopiest possible expert I can find, tails I go with the expert whose opinion is the furthest from reality"?
pinky
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 15 days
|
Re: Sanity check [Re: Phred]
#2568349 - 04/16/04 03:23 PM (19 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It really does amuse me how people are quick to change their opinions on the importance of enforcing UN resolutions etc. Or do you like me think that it is gross hypocrisy the way the US allows Israel to flaunt any resolution it chooses.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Sanity check [Re: GazzBut]
#2568386 - 04/16/04 03:36 PM (19 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Actually, GazzBut, as I have pointed out here several times before in threads I know for a fact you have read, the fact that the conditional ceasefire was also recorded as a UN resolution is completely irrelevant to me. A ceasefire is a ceasefire. Conditional ceasefires existed long before there was such a thing as the UN. The concept has been understood for millennia now.
But when those who refuse to believe a ceasefire has any validity in and of itself start obfuscating things by alluding instead to UN resolutions, I reserve the right to point out their inability to grasp even what their beloved UN has to say.
pinky
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 15 days
|
Re: Sanity check [Re: Phred]
#2568396 - 04/16/04 03:39 PM (19 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
So you are uncomfortable with the gross hypocrisy displayed by the US then.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Sanity check [Re: GazzBut]
#2568426 - 04/16/04 03:57 PM (19 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The US is not being hypocritical. The US (unfortunately) had chosen to act as if the UN has real relevance. This might be because they are a charter member. Regardless, as I pointed out in my highlighted sections of Resolution 1441, the US and England and Australia and Spain and Italy and Poland and all the others who took part in deposing Hussein did so legally. The fact that the UN has yet (more than a full year later) to even table (much less pass) a resolution censuring their action speaks for itself. pinky
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Sanity check [Re: Phred]
#2568789 - 04/16/04 05:18 PM (19 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Sanity check [Re: Phred]
#2570161 - 04/17/04 01:39 AM (19 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Regardless, as I pointed out in my highlighted sections of Resolution 1441 Can you please list us your qualifications and experience in international law. Give us a single reason why your "opinion" is worth a damn. Yes, of course. A single professor Here's another 15 teachers of international law In an open letter to 10 Downing Street, published in the Guardian newspaper, a group of 16 academic lawyers have argued that taking action without a new, clear United Nations mandate "will seriously undermine the international rule of law". This is the full text. We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq. The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances. Before military action can lawfully be undertaken against Iraq, the security council must have indicated its clearly expressed assent. It has not yet done so. A vetoed resolution could provide no such assent. The prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes "unreasonable" and may be disregarded has no basis in international law. The UK has used its security council veto on 32 occasions since 1945. Any attempt to disregard these votes on the ground that they were "unreasonable" would have been deplored as an unacceptable infringement of the UK's right to exercise a veto under UN charter article 27. A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law. Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would remain. A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war. Prof Ulf Bernitz, Dr Nicolas Espejo-Yaksic, Agnes Hurwitz, Prof Vaughan Lowe, Dr Ben Saul, Dr Katja Ziegler (University of Oxford), Prof James Crawford, Dr Susan Marks, Dr Roger O'Keefe (University of Cambridge), Prof Christine Chinkin, Dr Gerry Simpson, Deborah Cass (London School of Economics), Dr Matthew Craven (School of Oriental and African Studies), Prof Philippe Sands, Ralph Wilde (University College London), Prof Pierre-Marie Dupuy (University of Paris) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2829717.stm
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 15 days
|
Re: Sanity check [Re: Phred]
#2570324 - 04/17/04 05:15 AM (19 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The US is not being hypocritical.
Only if you dont understand the meaning of the word.
Quote:
The US (unfortunately) had chosen to act as if the UN has real relevance.
Only when it suits them. Like now for instance, when the US are desperate for the UN to help them sort out the mess they have made in Iraq.
As you have failed to explain why the US are not being hypocritical by allowing Israel to flaunt UN resolutions I take it you are just incapable of admitting it because it goes against what you believe. Weak.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 15 days
|
Re: Sanity check [Re: Phred]
#2570364 - 04/17/04 06:03 AM (19 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It is obvious you have never read Resolution 1441. I have. Several times. In its entirety. I even provided a link to it here on more than one occasion.
Thanks for conceeding the point and congrats on reading 1441.
Quote:
It was not Hussein who got to decide whether he has provided sufficient proof.
Many of the weapons inspectors thought he had provided credible proof as did Powell and Rice in 2001. Shame the US are apparently wholly incapable of analysing evidence. Although I dont believe that is the case, they are obviously liars or fools.
Quote:
They required compliance with all of the conditions of the conditional ceasefire.
As it is obvious you are very knowledgeable on the subject could you give me some examples of the other aspects of the conditional surrender agreement which the Iraqi's reneged upon?
Quote:
If it will make you feel any better, I personally have stated here many times that the sanctions were a bad idea.
Why would your opinion on anything make me feel better? Do you need a hand getting off your high horse?
Quote:
Even if the US wasn't interested,
So you think Iraq would have invaded Kuwait if Gillespie had told the Iraqi's the truth i.e You attack Kuwait and we will strike you as hard as we can?
I doubt it, so in one sense the US' lies caused the war. If they had told the truth then none of this would have happened. This is the problem with cause and effect, as I noted in my previous post, you can have multiple effects but you can also have multiple causes.
Quote:
Again you demonstrate quite clearly your incomplete grasp of cause and effect. A single cause can have multiple possible effects.
I said: The effects that could have lead from that cause are numerous not singular. - So you have used my explanation to show me how I dont unbderstand the subject????? Please try a little harder.
Simple cause and effect cannot be applied to these situations. As I have just pointed out their are multiple causes and multiple possible effects. To say Saddam invading Kuwait is the sole cause of the events of the last 13 years is very small minded to say the least.
Quote:
Clever enough to illustrate the flaws in your position. For the purposes of this thread, that's all that's required.
Only in your own mind im afraid Pinky.
Quote:
Did civilians get killed in the Allied invasion of Hitler's Europe in WWII? Did civilians get killed in the UN's expulsion of Hussein's forces in Kuwait? What's the difference?
Thats a pretty facile comparisson. I thought you were taking the comparison to a more meaningful level but if all you are actually saying is they were both wars in which people died I can accept that, although I am at a loss to think why you would bother making such a blatantly obvious and meaningless comparisson. No one can say, WWII was unnecesary if unfortunate.
Quote:
From the point of view of Americans, that was an entirely unnecessary war.
Only from the point of view a few narrow minded americans who fail to realise that once Europe had been secured by the Nazi's it would have meant big trouble for the US, and who also dont realise how dependent on trade with europe the US actually is.
Quote:
Here's a perfect example of your regurgitation of unoriginal crap you've picked up somewhere and repeat without thinking it through. What it boils down to is -- "We must free no one until we can free everyone".
The point I was actually making was if the reason behind attacking Iraq really was simply to help the Iraqi's then why would we stop there? Why did we cherrypick the Iraqi's at the expense of all other possible choices of people we could have helped?
Do you seriously believe that helping the Iraqi people was a major consideration of Bush and Co?
Quote:
What you seem unable to grasp is that while one has the right to aid others, one is not obligated to do so. One may pick and choose the recipients of one's aid.
What you are incapable of admitting is that helping the Iraqi's was not the reason for the invasion. It was for economic reasons and had to do with securing a powerbase from which to exert further control over the region.
Quote:
Ah. So it is not the deposing Hussein you oppose, but the possibility that those who deposed him may saddle the Iraqis with a system of government which will make life even worse for the Iraqis than it was under Hussein.
I would hope that after such an invasion had taken place the fact that the new system of government put in place would be an improvement on the former would be a given.
What I meant was a truly benevolent liberator would not be more interested in making money and securing oil infrastructure. They also wouldnt shackle free speech by closing down newspapers.
Quote:
you've already answered that earlier, in your response to my question, "Are you saying it was better to depose Hussein and then bail?" when you answered no. So I guess that means you have a system of government in mind for Iraq other than the one described in the interim constitution proposed by the IGC. Would you care to share it with us?
It is obvious that it would have been worse just to walk straight out of Iraq the moment the war had ended. I fail to see why this means I MUST have a better plan of how to handle the situation. However, I would have bent over backwards to get the UN involved, I would have reduced US troop involvement to a minimum and I would have spent a whole lot more money on reconstruction that benefited the Iraqi people quickly. Pretty stupid bombing the water and electricity supplies wasnt it?
Quote:
I can't help noticing that when I asked if you had a better system of government in mind than a constitutionally-limited government composed of elected representatives governing with the consent of the governed, you failed to answer.
A system of open democracy would be put in place as quickly as possible. As this hasnt happened anywhere it will be very easy for you to pick holes in this. But far greater minds than mine can conceive of this option and I think it would be a vast improvement on constitutionally-limited government composed of elected etc etc.
Quote:
If by "our governments" you mean all the governments in the world (except Iraq) who spoke on the matter pre-March 19, 2003, may I ask you what possible reason all those other governments -- especially the ones who opposed the deposition of Hussein by force -- would have for lying about it?
The Germans clearly stated there were no links between Iraq and Al-qaida and I dont seem to remember the French backing up any of the Intel claims made by the US and UK axis of ignorance.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
germin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 19 years, 8 months
|
|
I can't point to a specific point, as it was more of a gradual process in which the sympathy we enjoyed during 9/11 turned into worldwide condemnation. While the leaders of the Arab world might have expressed condolences, it's obvious from the reaction of the people (I clearly remember palestineans running around prasing allah in the streets on 9/11 and 9/12) that they weren't giving us sympathy.
Basically, from the point Bush started talking about Iraq, it was clear to non-dittohead that he wouldn't rest until Saddam was deposed and Iraq was in American hands. I do not think, however, that it was so much the deposing of Hussein as much as the fact that he was attacking another Muslim country right after attacking Afghanistan that made Muslims suspicious, especially considering the attempts to link him with Al Queda and 9/11. I think it's rather easy to see why many Muslims would percieve a conspiracy against their religion.
Well, chicken or the egg, the terrorism led by arabs didn't begin with 9/11, nor did the arab's hatred of the US and Israel. Their were numerous terrorist attacks, and failed attempts, against the US and our allies prior to 9/11. What was the excuse for this? Answer: Our support for Israel.
|
HagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 10,028
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 1 month, 2 days
|
Re: Sanity check [Re: Xlea321]
#2570938 - 04/17/04 12:12 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
At first I had found it amusing that this "expert" in international law was named Vaughn Law, like an self-titled super hero come to save the day. But now rereading it, his name is actually Vaughn Lowe. How disappointing. For lawyers, they don't make a very compelling case. Maybe that's why they teach. They don't offer up the text of the resolutions to allow the people to interpret it themselves, just their opinions that we should embrace as gospel. Other than the feeble attempt by Lowe in your first article, it seems his colleagues don't see fit to discuss the ceasefire. Quote:
A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law. Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would remain.
Exactly what serious questions would remain? He was verifiably in breach of his agreements. Quote:
A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war.
Oh, I see. Even if it were lawful, it would still be wrong. And you never answered pinky's point that if this were illegal, why no resolution (even presented) condemning it? I wonder, what do you think Kofi Annan meant by responsibilities in this quote? Quote:
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, speaking in the Council's chamber immediately after the vote, hailed resolution 1441 for setting out in clear terms Iraq's obligation to cooperate with the United Nations. He urged Baghdad "to seize this opportunity," and warned that if its defiance continued, "the Security Council must face its responsibilities."
-------------------- I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine
Edited by HagbardCeline (04/17/04 12:14 PM)
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 15 days
|
|
Quote:
He was verifiably in breach of his agreements.
for claritys sake, can you please outline how he was verifiably in breach of his agreements?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
HagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 10,028
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 1 month, 2 days
|
Re: Sanity check [Re: GazzBut]
#2572592 - 04/17/04 11:25 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, lets go over few.
1. Didn't disclose all of his WMD programs (and he had several oppourtunities to do this). 2. Actively developing missles beyond his permitted range. 3. Maintaining biological and chemical capabilities, and equipment banned by his agreements. 4. Interfering with the inspection process and hindering the inspection
The are several others, but those are really all you need. You need only breach one aspect of a contract to default.
-------------------- I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Ok, lets go over few. Yet the UN decided none of these alledged "breaches" warranted a resolution declaring war. I know this isn't going to be answered but can you state where UN resolution 687 says Iraq will be invaded if he is in breach of any of the conditions 12 years from now? For lawyers, they don't make a very compelling case. Maybe that's why they teach. It doesn't look like pink is going to tell us what qualifications and experience he has in international law. Perhaps you could share yours with us and we can judge what your opinion on these matters is worth. Do you have a professor of international law who can vouch for your knowledge?
|
Jellric
altered statesman
Registered: 11/07/98
Posts: 2,261
Loc: non-local
|
|
Quote:
You need only breach one aspect of a contract to default.
Are you maintaining that we should declare war on every country violating any aspect of international law? No? If not, how do we decide which and sell that war to the American people and the world?
-------------------- I AM what Willis was talkin' bout.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 15 days
|
|
Quote:
1. Didn't disclose all of his WMD programs (and he had several oppourtunities to do this).
This would be the WMD programs we havent found any evidence of yet?
Quote:
2. Actively developing missles beyond his permitted range.
We found a handful of missiles that were ever so slightly over the permitted range.
Quote:
3. Maintaining biological and chemical capabilities, and equipment banned by his agreements.
When did we find these then?
Quote:
4. Interfering with the inspection process and hindering the inspection
Inspectors in the mid 90's reported Iraq had complied with around 95% of the requests made of them. When the inspectors left Iraq during the late 90's it was a reaction to reports in the Washington post that US members of the inspection team were actually spies.
Yep. Sounds like we were fully justified to commit mass murder doesnt it?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Sanity check [Re: GazzBut]
#2573235 - 04/18/04 05:34 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
This would be the WMD programs we havent found any evidence of yet?
It doesn't matter whether they existed or not, the Iraqis wern't sufficently forthcoming that they didn't exist. Therefore thousands of innocent people must be bombed to death.
When did we find these then?
/Me pulls up chair...
Inspectors in the mid 90's reported Iraq had complied with around 95% of the requests made of them. When the inspectors left Iraq during the late 90's it was a reaction to reports in the Washington post that US members of the inspection team were actually spies.
You and your pesky facts
|
Mushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout
Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,867
Last seen: 5 months, 10 hours
|
|
Quote:
The Germans clearly stated there were no links between Iraq and Al-qaida and I dont seem to remember the French backing up any of the Intel claims made by the US and UK axis of ignorance.
Yes, and along with the Russians, they also had contracts with Iraq. Follow the money trail. The countries opposed to us invading Iraq had business ties with the Iraqi government and business, and were acting to PROTECT THEIR OWN INTERESTS.
NOT OUT OF GODDAMNED HUMANITARIAN REASONS, AS MUCH AS YOU'D LIKE IT TO BE TRUE.
Every body else on this fucking planet is every bit as sleazy and greedy as we Americans. Don't think otherwise.
Quote:
"It doesn't look like pink is going to tell us what qualifications and experience he has in international law. Perhaps you could share yours with us and we can judge what your opinion on these matters is worth. Do you have a professor of international law who can vouch for your knowledge?
And here's part two. Don't trust the experts when it comes to matters of interpretations. Hard science, you can bet on the scientists. Law? That's just a bunch of goddamned opinions about things that WE created, which are EASILY! misinterpreted and reinterpreted. Sure, if a lawyer tells me such-and-such, I'd believe it.. but I'd do my damnedest to check up on it myself. And international law is a lot newer and less clear than US laws. UN has been around for what, 50 or 60 years now, and at the start it was basically around just to keep the US and the Communists from destroying the world in a nuclear holocost.
Quote:
This would be the WMD programs we havent found any evidence of yet?
We don't need to.
We KNOW he HAD WMD's in the past. We KNOW that he was developing them in the past.
He was REQUIRED to present, to the world and for the world's review, PROOF that he had destroyed ALL of his WMD's and ALL research into WMD's.
He did not.
IE -- Last month I had $500. I threw a rock at someone and was fined my $500. I payed $300, and said that's all I've got, and when the authorities came to search my wallet, I delayed them, caused problems, and basically gave the distinct impression that I was moving the remaining $200 around and keep it hidden.
Now, even if that other 200 bucks had been eaten by moths.. wouldn't you assume I still had it? I hope you would. It would be the rational conclusion.
Quote:
it was a reaction to reports in the Washington post that US members of the inspection team were actually spies.
You'd think that a more reputable paper could pick up on that story if it was true. And seriously, what the hell would we be spying on.. everything of interest we blew up in '91, or would be told about by the weapons inspectors.
Quote:
Pretty stupid bombing the water and electricity supplies wasnt it?
Yeah those fucking Iraqis are pretty dumb.
the problems with the electricity is largely due to terrorist activity that has occured since US occupation. In order to cause problems, stir dissent, and generally turn it into MORE of a hellhole, they've been blowing up power lines and other utilities. Which makes everyone miserable, which costs more money.. oh and did I mention they also have been attacking oil rigs and refineries. You know, basically the only thing in that country that's worth anything to anyone?
Quote:
The point I was actually making was if the reason behind attacking Iraq really was simply to help the Iraqi's then why would we stop there? Why did we cherrypick the Iraqi's at the expense of all other possible choices of people we could have helped?
Can we help the whole world?
It'd be nice wouldn't it?
We can't do it. So what do you do?
You do what you can, and help out first those who will be able to help you out in return. In this case, freedom for oil. Nothing wrong with that. If we help out those who we can and who can help us in return, we can help more people than if we tried this with EVERY country. The expenditure in resources would be too great, and the decision of who to help next would be too hard.
An analogy because I like them. Two people don't have a car, you do, you can give one a ride. They're both about the same level of familiarity with you -- that is, aquaintances, not friends -- but one isn't going to help out with money for the gas to run them around, and the other will. You drive the one that'll chip in. Because it makes sense.
-------------------- i finally got around to making a sig revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might grar.
|
|