Print

[boris2]

QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 10 2003, 01:12 PM)

QUOTE (boris2 @ Mar 10 2003, 06:14 AM) Of course not, dumbass, but the US has signed the UN charter, so you would be breaking International law.. which is a terrible thing for long-term peace How would enforcing several standing UN resolutions be a violation of international law?  Because members of the security council refuse to do their jobs suddenly the world ought to go into paralysis, at the mercy of ever tyrant around?   I don't think so.

Have you even read resolution 1441?

[boris2]

QUOTE

At least I use my own words. You just copy and paste from your favorite communist websites. If you think that Bush is bad. Be thankfull I'm not your president. If I was president their would be less terrorist in this world. And I think Israel should take off the gloves and leave them off. Then take Afrafat and hang him from the nearest tree.

The reason your not president is because your too stupid to be president, Aerial Sharon "cracks down" on Palestine, suicide bombings have only gone up 3 times.

Your wrong, a hard-line approach creates more problems, not less.

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (dude @ Mar 12 2003, 03:35 AM)

Lizard: Nice obfuscation so far but then again I am not one to give in to the "beat my head against the wall" therapy sessions regarding individuals such as yourself who cannot look critically at this world and what is going on it.  With that I'll just shake my head and get on with more important things to do.

Ah, of course.  Well, at least you are consistent in your embrace of surrender as a strategy.  Happy trails!

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (boris2 @ Mar 12 2003, 03:46 AM)

QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 10 2003, 01:12 PM) QUOTE (boris2 @ Mar 10 2003, 06:14 AM) Of course not, dumbass, but the US has signed the UN charter, so you would be breaking International law.. which is a terrible thing for long-term peace How would enforcing several standing UN resolutions be a violation of international law?  Because members of the security council refuse to do their jobs suddenly the world ought to go into paralysis, at the mercy of ever tyrant around?   I don't think so. Have you even read resolution 1441?

Have you?  Tell me what I'm missing, don't just throw these adorable little angry faces at me.   In any case, the only reason I deal with UN legalese is to point out that there is ample reason within that framework to attack Iraq.  It has nothing to do with my actual reasons for supporting US policy, as I believe the UN doing something correct and moral is a function of coincidence, not an inevitable result of any decision it makes.

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (Rebel-Soul @ Mar 12 2003, 03:06 AM)

Athough it does not exsist like world peace it is something to shoot for is it not?

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.  I think because it is antithetical to human behaviour and does not exist in nature, altruism is merely a myth used to justify otherwise unconscionable acts.  It does not mean you cannot do good things for others; it just means you are not being honest unless you admit you are doing them because you like to first and foremost.  It may seem like a trifling distinction, but I think it is really important.

[capt_n_yayo]

   

[Lizard_King]

QUOTE (boris2 @ Mar 12 2003, 06:00 AM)

The closest it comes to conflict is "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to comply. Hans Blix has not announced that Iraq has "failed to comply" with the resolution as the US has been pushing him to do, and until he does they can't legally justifty it. This is why Bush wanted to remove Clintons sig from the International Criminal Court - he didn't want to be convicted of war crime, or in his words "politically motivated prosecutions of Americans"  BTW there has been no resolutions since the end of the gulf war that legalise war.

So essentially what you are saying is that until a weapons inspector says the magic words, Saddam Hussein has not, in fact, committed an infraction?  You really, honestly, can look me in the eye (so to speak) and tell me that Saddam Hussein is in compliance with 1441?

Or does it depend on what the meaning of "is" is?


The ICC, much like nearly every other piece of UN sponsored legislation, is a joke.  In fact, the concept of international law is a foolish one to put faith in.  George Kennan noted in his lectures on American foreign policy that Americans have always had a tendency to try to push their allies into professions of moral rectitude rather than concrete acts, and that we continually attempt to infuse the field of foreign relations with legal concepts.  He was very doubtful that such an approach was either logical or desirable.  

The UN illustrates this well. Unless national governments are willing to hand over their sovereignty and create an international army and ruling body (which I don't think would be wise or for that matter all that likely, to say the least), there is no such thing as international law.  Foreign policy is a question of precedents and a balance of interests, and has nothing to do with law.  Morality can often have a role in it, as can ideology, but to pretend that an international criminal court would somehow deter criminal acts is absolutely absurd.  

"Legalise war"?  Perhaps you should inform Saddam Hussein of how illegal waging war on his own people is...or tell the French that as they invaded the Ivory Coast just a few months ago to put down a rebellion, and no one said a word.  Or tell the Russians that as they wage war on Chechnya, or Al Qaeda as they wage war on the West in general.  Law does not exist unless there is a social contract with a higher authority. That does not exist in international relations.

George Bush is absolutely right in not submitting to the ICC.  It is patently absurd to have our human rights record up for review at the whim of an organization that put Lybia as the head of the human rights commission and was on the verge of putting Iraq on the disarmament commission.

[Wong Hung Lo]

QUOTE (boris2 @ Mar 11 2003, 11:00 PM)

QUOTE At least I use my own words. You just copy and paste from your favorite communist websites. If you think that Bush is bad. Be thankfull I'm not your president. If I was president their would be less terrorist in this world. And I think Israel should take off the gloves and leave them off. Then take Afrafat and hang him from the nearest tree. The reason your not president is because your too stupid to be president, Aerial Sharon "cracks down" on Palestine, suicide bombings have only gone up 3 times. Your wrong, a hard-line approach creates more problems, not less.

I say kill them all and let their Allah sort them out.  You got to be French or something since you scare easy and want to give in to terrorism. Oh no, hard line approach leads to more problems. I should throw my hands up and give in to the terrorist demands. Pussys like you are the reason for terrorism. As long as they can scare people into doing what they demand then they get what they want.

If all the terrorist are dead and the ones that support them are dead. Then you wont have a terrorist problem. Russia knows how to deal with their terrorist problems. And they don't wear gloves when they do it either. Once Israel takes off their gloves and crushes the terrorist and those who support them. Then things will change for the good.

[boris2]

QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 12 2003, 05:19 AM)

QUOTE (boris2 @ Mar 12 2003, 06:00 AM) The closest it comes to conflict is "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to comply. Hans Blix has not announced that Iraq has "failed to comply" with the resolution as the US has been pushing him to do, and until he does they can't legally justifty it. This is why Bush wanted to remove Clintons sig from the International Criminal Court - he didn't want to be convicted of war crime, or in his words "politically motivated prosecutions of Americans"  BTW there has been no resolutions since the end of the gulf war that legalise war. So essentially what you are saying is that until a weapons inspector says the magic words, Saddam Hussein has not, in fact, committed an infraction?  You really, honestly, can look me in the eye (so to speak) and tell me that Saddam Hussein is in compliance with 1441? Or does it depend on what the meaning of "is" is? The ICC, much like nearly every other piece of UN sponsored legislation, is a joke.  In fact, the concept of international law is a foolish one to put faith in.  George Kennan noted in his lectures on American foreign policy that Americans have always had a tendency to try to push their allies into professions of moral rectitude rather than concrete acts, and that we continually attempt to infuse the field of foreign relations with legal concepts.  He was very doubtful that such an approach was either logical or desirable.   The UN illustrates this well. Unless national governments are willing to hand over their sovereignty and create an international army and ruling body (which I don't think would be wise or for that matter all that likely, to say the least), there is no such thing as international law.  Foreign policy is a question of precedents and a balance of interests, and has nothing to do with law.  Morality can often have a role in it, as can ideology, but to pretend that an international criminal court would somehow deter criminal acts is absolutely absurd.   "Legalise war"?  Perhaps you should inform Saddam Hussein of how illegal waging war on his own people is...or tell the French that as they invaded the Ivory Coast just a few months ago to put down a rebellion, and no one said a word.  Or tell the Russians that as they wage war on Chechnya, or Al Qaeda as they wage war on the West in general.  Law does not exist unless there is a social contract with a higher authority. That does not exist in international relations. George Bush is absolutely right in not submitting to the ICC.  It is patently absurd to have our human rights record up for review at the whim of an organization that put Lybia as the head of the human rights commission and was on the verge of putting Iraq on the disarmament commission.

 Youre a nazi

Edit: Or more precisely "neo-nazi", or the US version "neo-con"

[boris2]

QUOTE

George Bush is absolutely right in not submitting to the ICC. It is patently absurd to have our human rights record up for review at the whim of an organization that put Lybia as the head of the human rights commission and was on the verge of putting Iraq on the disarmament commission.

Why should every other democracy sign it and not the USA?

[boris2]

QUOTE

"Legalise war"? Perhaps you should inform Saddam Hussein of how illegal waging war on his own people is...or tell the French that as they invaded the Ivory Coast just a few months ago to put down a rebellion, and no one said a word. Or tell the Russians that as they wage war on Chechnya, or Al Qaeda as they wage war on the West in general. Law does not exist unless there is a social contract with a higher authority. That does not exist in international relations.

Why do you say stuff without supporting it? If you had ever made it to uni, you would have been expelled for this.

Some mod should close this thread... its becoming far too opinionated

[Wong Hung Lo]

QUOTE (boris2 @ Mar 12 2003, 05:59 AM)

Actually I'm Australian, our government is one of the most outspoken "all the way with the USA" types.. a bit like Britain, but like Britain the governments popularity is suffering from it, just like every other country with an "educated" public. Meanwhile, France and others that oppose war are enjoying higher popularity. The situation is different on the USA, maybe because you follow bushes theme words "evil and "deception" too closely? I dunno, I'm actually far more worried about the USA than I would ever be about terrorism. The idea of "pre-emptive" strikes, that was the excuse Germany used to invade Poland.

I've had these views long before Bush was in office. So don't think that Bush's words have made me think the way I do. I grew up always observing what is going on in this world. Muslim terrorist killing people over and over again. It doesn't take much to figure what this so called religion of peace is all about.

Didn't terrorism just hit you close to home a few months ago? I remember alot of Australians being killed in a terrorist bombing. You would be thinking alot differantly now if a member of your family was killed in that bombing.

Instead of opposing terrorism to embrace it because you support Saddam. Saddam is a terrorist who supports terrorism. He pays the families of suicide bombers $50,000.

Since you support the muslim terrorist who are just like the nazis and want to see every Jewish person in the world dead. I think you are a nazi. If you were to go to a nazi website you would read that they have the same views as you and Al Ghazi do. The nazi skinheads hate Israel and the Jewish people. And agree with what the terrorist do because it kills Jewish people.

[froescheD]

jesus i realy can't hear it anymore

[senator]

[Wong Hung Lo]

QUOTE (froescheD @ Mar 12 2003, 07:11 AM)

jesus i realy can't hear it anymore

I agree with you. I'm sick of this thread. I hope a mod locks this thread since it's going nowhere. Everbody will have there own opinion and nobody can change it.

I get sick of politics too. A old guy I know told me how his father thought of politics. He said that if you put a Democrat and a Republican in a bag and shake it up. You could reach in and pull out a son of a bitch every time.