If it joined what? So all you have to do to avoid charges is not join whatever it is?Quote:
The US world face charges as indicated here if it joined.
Printable View
If it joined what? So all you have to do to avoid charges is not join whatever it is?Quote:
The US world face charges as indicated here if it joined.
Now that is a conspiracy websight - it actually weakens the creditablity of your arguement in my eyes. And you were doing so well up to that point in expressing your thoughts and views.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitt
If "Alternative Media" is not acceptable as sources. I will cease my discussion on this topic as I have little faith in supposedly reputable media outlets (the recent newsweek article proves that)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Alternative Media is acceptable - but conspricary is just that, conspricary without lots of factual and doublecheck information, often relaying on the type of reporting that has made you question the mainstream media like Newsweek. If you can not accept it from Newsweek - why would you accept it from another site.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitt
Hell you can link to any of the other alternative media sources on the web that actually report the news with lots of factual information - with little rant. I often read alternative sources besides the mainstream.
This type of site would of been better to use to make your point.
http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm
Once more to be illegal the US must have broken a law. Tell me what law it has broken and by what authority it has any juristiction or power over the US. I think the US illegaly entered the war in Kosovo but no charges have been brought against us. Even if it were who would punish us.
This is a fact. The strongest will always do whats best for themselves unless your talking about liberals.Quote:
America is a superpower, which can evidently do what it pleases
God....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
He told you that? ~;)
Gawain, way off topic, but you and and Redleg both need to delete the phrase 'Once again' from your vocabulary. Both of you have used it in excess of 150% of your allotted usage for any one phrase in your lifetime.
Back on topic, Bmolsson, I don't argue that we haven't broken God's law. I don't argue that we have either, for that matter. Could you cite your scripture, or ours, where it shows we've violated God's law?
I said Once more ~;) Besides I like to point out that Im repeating myself to make a point. After you post something 4 or 5 times you get tired of pointing out again. Its short for how many times do I have to tell you this ~DQuote:
'Once again' from your vocabulary. Both of you have used it in excess of 150% of your allotted usage for any one phrase in your lifetime.
I know what you and Redleg are thinking when you say it, but it's become like nails on a chalkboard. At Christmas, I thought it was funny in Redleg's posts and pointed it out. IT AIN'T FUNNY ANY MORE!!!!
-How many times do I have to say this?
-Either I'm unclear in my post or you're not reading...
-Please pay attention....
-Hey, dummy, listen up....
-I bet somebody a beer you wouldn't pay attention to me, but...
-I've known eggplants that would have understood this by now...
PLEASE, I'm begging, find some other phrase than "Once again", or "Once more".
Look Don Im only going to explain this one last time ~D
Beautiful! :kiss2: That's all I'm asking for! Thank you!
Volumes of stuff does not mean anything, but is a relatively common tactic to use to try and make a point. Indeed if I was trying to make a point to a jury, I would be chucking as much evidence at them as I can, knowing precisely how average the general population is, and what effect this will have upon them.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitt
While I agree that Iraq appeares to have no WMD, that is not quite the same as Iraq having shown the world that it has no WMD.
EDIT: Your theories about the real reason are borderline insane. While it is true that the US would preffer to have the USD as the prime world currency, it has far cheaper/easier ways of ensuring that it stays the prime currency. Indeed this war, with all it's spending (increasing budget deficits) is actually increasing the chance of the USD losing it's position as the foremost world transaction currency. I fail to see how that is a real justification.
Well, dgb makes some good points, and one more I'd like to add is how the US dollar came to be the base currency for the world. At the end of the day, a dollar is a promisary note note from the US government, just like a Pound Sterling is a promisary note from the government of the UK. And the US has never defaulted on a promisary note. Other governments can't say that and therefore, other promisary notes don't carry the same kind of stability.
Nobody's arguing that the dollar is a little volatile right now. It always has been. But if you're an investor, and you want to know you're going to get your investment back, the US dollar is the best place to put your money. So while other investments may be stronger right now, and may remain so in the short term, is 'what's the hottest commodity' really the criteria we want to use as the basis for global capital?
It's funny in a way. On the one hand, we're supposedly evil for asking China to stop artificially tieing it's currency to the dollar and let theirs rise in response to ours. In the other, we're evil because we're trying to force all of the oil producing countries of the world to stay on it. Which is it? The answer can't be "The US is wrong no matter which way it turns". Well, I guess it can, but then there's no point debating all this stuff.
It always is with the leftists who wish to undermine our nation.Quote:
The answer can't be "The US is wrong no matter which way it turns".
Don't think it's mainly leftist that is after US these days. Being a lefty is soooo fifties...... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Hehe, good point. They should also refrain from the phrase 'Try reading...' which automatically takes the discussion down to the level of schoolyard bickering and personal slights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
In my over 8000 posts I bet you cant find more than 25 instances of me saying this. Good luck proving me wrong ~:)Quote:
Hehe, good point. They should also refrain from the phrase 'Try reading...' which automatically takes the discussion down to the level of schoolyard bickering and personal slights.
Be careful what you are saying, Gawain ... IIRC Adrian read the whole EU Constitution ... going through your 8000+ posts will probably be a cakewalk for him now ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
~:mecry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
I can see hes looking forward to proving me wrong. ~;)
Oh for Pete's sake, I can't be bothered. In the name of the father, the son and single malt spirits I absolve thee, brother Gawain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
http://matousmileys.free.fr/catho.gif
I need no absolution for I have not sinned ~;)
I don't think my post was ad hominem. I think it was descriptive and questioning. Regardless, there are at least three problems with the above:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
1) The quote about my likes/dislikes was in reference to U.S. policy then being discussed. My personal likes do not apply to governmental postures.
2) My explanations of basic international law are just that: basic. There is no informed discussion that confuses treaties with domestic legislation I am aware of.
3) My view that 'legitimacy is derived from popular sovereignty' is a philosophical position. I don't believe it is radical nor do others, as noted by some respondents. I do believe it is correct. I believe this because upon reflection it seems the soundest position. If someone wishes to put forward a counter view on a undemocratic legitimacy I am willing to listen and scrutinize accordingly. I feel no compunction however to do someone else's thinking for them. If someone cannot come up with a counter-argument that is there own affair and may suggest my view is the correct one. I don't believe any of this falls under some breach of intellectual dishonesty.
Given the tenor of some of the other posts:
Now go and sin no more. :angel:
Kiwitt
Are you still arguing the Iraq War is illegal? I looked through the recent posts and it seems things have shifted to reasons for war which is a different question.
From what I have learned to date from other peoples posts. The war was "legal" in the strictest sense. The US and it's allies have not broken any law, as these nations are only answerable to their own citizens, which I now accept is the correct position for a "sovereign" state. Also, according to these nations "faulty" intelligence, they were told (what they wanted to hear, because of an possibly alternative agenda) that Iraq had broken the ceasefire by building WMD. Naive, I know, even though other "sovereign" states said they had not. Their arguments and the inspectors reports that they did not find any were also ignored.
I think I remember it been mentioned, that if the US had "intelligence" of these WMD they should have given this information to the inspectors , so they could check it out. This did not happen. Why not, I do not know.
I have not seen any big Broadcast about a "huge" WMD find. In the meantime, over 100,000 people (including US troops and allies) are now dead, because of this war. Right or wrong, war is still bad.
Until I see a detailed, proven independent (non-US) report that Iraq had WMDs, I will still consider this war illegal in my eyes.
How are these two statements compatible?Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitt
They are not. My position is the last.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I see. What do you mean by illegal?Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwitt
No WMD, no breach of ceasefire, no valid reason for restarting combat.