Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Seeing as how so many topic end up going so far off the original point onto this subject, there might as well be a main area to discuss it. From now on, instead of quoting and responding in the thread that does not deal with it, bring it here. When you quote someone from another thread and you wish for a response, PM them to let them know about it.
Nodbugger Never was Iraq's severity taken away. They were always 'self governed' and never did the US take that away from them. We simply changed their leader. Which is no way violating that. Iraq is still Iraq and it will now be run by the Iraqi people. We in no way took away their sovereignty. I am not evil for not caring if an evil person died. I would not care if Saddam died or if Osama dies. I wouldn't have cared when Hitler died or when Stalin died. They were all evil people that made the world a worse place to live. There is no reason not to kill them. About the Iranian mother. If she lived there for twenty years, I'm assuming she was born there then yes she is brainwashed. Iran has a closed media and they brainwash people from the beginning. She has passed that on to you. Take some asshole out of the anti-bush protests in New York and set them down in Iran and they will never say the same things about the US as they were not so long ago. Same with China, Saddam's Iraq, North Korea, Cuba and the countless other shit holes that you fuck tards want to stay. ViperFud, you are the biggest retard ever. Yes, for a group that large you need a permit. It is a law go look it up. And no New Yorkers never said that. I can show you a video of them saying the complete opposite. They are all pissed at the protesters taking up tax money and all their security forces. Plus all the streets they are taking up. No I never said it is legal f you don't get caught. No where ever have I said that. You analogy doesn't work dumb ass. Why the fuck would you be pressing charges if I was the one killed? It doesn't work to begin with because it isn't even a similar situation. You are just pulling shit out of your ass. Bush never said we are returning Sovereignty to Iraq. He said something that your little mind may have turned into that. Because all of you are so fucking stupid you cannot even understand what someone says, the funny part is you all call him an idiot yes you cannot understand what he says. BTW Java you keep contradicting yourself with that is garble you keep posting. If the UN isn't taking away our sovereignty by taking away what we can and can't do how come we are taking away Iraq's sovereignty? Wow.. just ...wow. Quote: If the UN isn't taking away our sovereignty by taking away what we can and can't do how come we are taking away Iraq's sovereignty? Did the United states of America sign the United Nations charter? Yes! Did Iraq sign anything that would let the United States of America invade it? No! And please enlighten us, just how is Javaxcx contradicting himself? Quote: No I never said it is legal f you don't get caught. No where ever have I said that. This is true, as far as I can see. You didn't say it's legal if you don't get causght, you said it's legal if you are not told it's illegal :rolleyes:
What a little dick to talk about my mother like that. For your information, she has been living in the US for the vast majority of her life. WAY before Bush was ever President, or the US named Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil". She has gone to college and is a successful person, and there is almost no way to set her apart from any other American unless I specifically told you of her background. If there is anyone on these forums who is brainwashed, it is you, chump. let's see... If you're American, you ought to go to places like Iran and then compare both leaders. That way, you will see Bush is good. and... If you have gotten a taste of other countries like Iran, and you still think Bush is an awful president. You must be brainwashed. Your logic is awful. Nodbugger, do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.
You cannot sit there and say Iran is in much better condition than the US. You cannot sit there and say Iran's leader is better than Bush. You cannot sit there and say your mother did not pick up another while she lived in Iran. I have been to a few shit hole countries. It is from bad leaders and dictators. If you are going to sit here and say how bad the US is you obviously know nothing about how bad other countries are.
Nodbugger You cannot sit there and say Iran is in much better condition than the US. Never did. Nodbugger You cannot sit there and say Iran's leader is better than Bush. Never did. Nodbugger You cannot sit there and say your mother did not pick up another while she lived in Iran. Try making sense next time. The US should not be compared to other countries. Of course it will usually look better by comparison. You ought to compare the US now and the US 5 years ago. Saying "Well, things look bad, but you can thank your lucky stars we don't live Tajikistan!" is retarded.
SEAL Nodbugger You cannot sit there and say Iran is in much better condition than the US. Never did. Nodbugger You cannot sit there and say Iran's leader is better than Bush. Never did. Nodbugger You cannot sit there and say your mother did not pick up another while she lived in Iran. Try making sense next time. The US should not be compared to other countries. Of course it will usually look better by comparison. You ought to compare the US now and the US 5 years ago. Saying "Well, things look bad, but you can thank your lucky stars we don't live Tajikistan!" is retarded. Why is that retarded? If you were really for peace and all that crap you would not be protesting Bush. You would be protesting Saddam, Kim Jong Il, Castro, and who ever the dictator of the day is in all of these other countries. I never saw any anti-war person attack Saddam. There were never anti-Saddam protests in the US. No one ever protested when he killed people or when he polluted the earth when he burnt the oil wells. No one of says they stand for these things ever mentions them because they are hypocrites. I can guarantee you not many people were actually against the war. They were just against Bush. They were sour over him winning so they made it their goal to make his presidency the worst thing he has ever gone through.
Many people not against the war?! Someone take a 2x4 and knock some sense into this dumbfuck.
SEAL Many people not against the war?! Someone take a 2x4 and knock some sense into this dumbfuck. They say they are against the war, but they are really against Bush. How can you not agree with removing a dictator like Saddam?
Let's think... Since it was an illegal action that removed this man... Yah.
No one is against that. What people are against is the excuse used. "The end justifies the means". No proof of WMD's Illegal invasion of another country. Yet it was still done.
Before you go off on your trademarked tirade, NB, I'm going to say something. Just because the Coalition of the Absolutely Essential didn't get punshed for what they did, it doesn't mean their action isn't illegal. Got that?
DaveGMM Before you go off on your trademarked tirade, NB, I'm going to say something. Just because the Coalition of the Absolutely Essential didn't get punshed for what they did, it doesn't mean their action isn't illegal. Got that? When the people who would be charging us with these actions don't charge us we are not in trouble. Has the UN said it is illegal? NO!
Ok then, let's revert to the logic of that statement. I declare that it is now legal to smoke weed anywhere you like anywhere in the world. Me saying so doesn't make it so. Now, try and figure out how that refers to your post.
DaveGMM Ok then, let's revert to the logic of that statement. I declare that it is now legal to smoke weed anywhere you like anywhere in the world. Me saying so doesn't make it so. Now, try and figure out how that refers to your post. You do not get it. You cannot enforce anything. Only the UN can. They have not said it was illegal. They know what we did and I don't think they are discussing its legality. That fact of the matter is the UN, who according to you is in charge, has never said it was illegal, ever. So until they say it is illegal it is legal. Your little weed analogy makes no sense. If the police said smoking weed is OK then it becomes OK. You however are not the police so you can eat shit and die for being so stupid.
Nodbugger You do not get it. He's talking to himself...
Nodbugger DaveGMM Ok then, let's revert to the logic of that statement. I declare that it is now legal to smoke weed anywhere you like anywhere in the world. Me saying so doesn't make it so. Now, try and figure out how that refers to your post. You do not get it. You cannot enforce anything. Only the UN can. They have not said it was illegal. They know what we did and I don't think they are discussing its legality. That fact of the matter is the UN, who according to you is in charge, has never said it was illegal, ever. So until they say it is illegal it is legal. Your little weed analogy makes no sense. If the police said smoking weed is OK then it becomes OK. You however are not the police so you can eat shit and die for being so stupid. No one said it was illegal? Really now... Kofi Annan thinks otherwise Quote: ....Question: There are critics in the Middle East who are very strongly criticizing the United Nations, first, for in their eyes legitimizing the results of an illegal war -- which you yourself described as illegal -- in resolution 1483 (2003).... regardless, incase you haven't figured it out, IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE FOR BREAKING THE LAW. It does not matter if no one told them the act was illegal, the law says that it is illegal, therefor it is illegal, regardless of the perpetrator being told or not. How hard is that to understand?
Someone was putting words into his mouth. Quote: On your first question, let me say that this is an issue that the Council debated and considered for a long period. There have been divisions, and we cannot overlook that. Those divisions and issues -- positions of principle that governments and individuals took -- are a matter for the record. I do not think that the resolution that the Council adopted last week is going to change the history of the recent past. However, the Council has given us a solid and a legal basis for our operations in Iraq, and I think at this stage that all the Council members are focused on what they can do to help Iraq and the Iraqi people -- and I think that should be our focus and our emphasis. I think if we pursue our actions on that basis, we will be able to make a difference. Because as he says here , it does not matter to him. How hard is it for you to understand, no where has it said what we did was illegal. We did not violate Iraq's sovereignty we did not do any of that.
Except that it was, you did and you did. Apart from that, your last post is completely... shit, as per usual. Quote: Your little weed analogy makes no sense. If the police said smoking weed is OK then it becomes OK. You however are not the police so you can eat shit and die for being so stupid. What you said isn't even my analogy. My analogy was that just because I say it's legal, doesn't mean people can do it and not expect to get arrested for breaking the law. Just because Premier Bush thinks that the war was "nessaccary" doesn't mean it was legal. And just because you live in your own fucking world doesn't mean the rest of us DO and don't see the legal and ethical problems of this "war".
If you are a substitute for the UN then it makes smoking weed legal. But you are not so you are just a dumb ass making stupid statements.
Quote: But you are not so you are just a dumb ass making stupid statements. Quote: If you are a substitute for the UN then it makes smoking weed legal. But you are not so you are just a dumb ass making stupid statements. Yeah... nice try totally avoiding my post.
Nodbugger Someone was putting words into his mouth. Quote: On your first question, let me say that this is an issue that the Council debated and considered for a long period. There have been divisions, and we cannot overlook that. Those divisions and issues -- positions of principle that governments and individuals took -- are a matter for the record. I do not think that the resolution that the Council adopted last week is going to change the history of the recent past. However, the Council has given us a solid and a legal basis for our operations in Iraq, and I think at this stage that all the Council members are focused on what they can do to help Iraq and the Iraqi people -- and I think that should be our focus and our emphasis. I think if we pursue our actions on that basis, we will be able to make a difference. Because as he says here , it does not matter to him. How hard is it for you to understand, no where has it said what we did was illegal. We did not violate Iraq's sovereignty we did not do any of that. Oh yes, I'm putting words into his mouth :rolleyes: . He didn't explicitly say it in that interview? No! Really? I could have sworn the guy asking the questions implied it had been said in a different adress! But how could I have thought of that? Oh, I know! Quote: ....Question: There are critics in the Middle East who are very strongly criticizing the United Nations, first, for in their eyes legitimizing the results of an illegal war -- which you yourself described as illegal -- in resolution 1483 (2003).... He says it right here! Quote: which you yourself described as illegal Never violated Iraq's sovereignty, let alone territorial integrity? Guess what an invasion does? Thats right! It violates both of them!
DaveGMM Quote: But you are not so you are just a dumb ass making stupid statements. Quote: If you are a substitute for the UN then it makes smoking weed legal. But you are not so you are just a dumb ass making stupid statements. Yeah... nice try totally avoiding my post. he does that a lot. In fact, he still hasn't answered my question from my first post. But to avoid confusion, I'll just ask it again. Quote: And please enlighten us, just how is Javaxcx contradicting himself?
As any sane minded person can figure out (obviously this excludes Nodbugger), Javaxcx has been making the same point for the last upteen posts: Quote: Oh well, I guess Crimson must be brainwashed as well. Even she agrees that the United States and the Coalition of the Willing violated international law (even though she still feels strongly that that law is flawed). Quote: The law says you may not speed. If you speed, you are violating the law, therefore, doing an illegal act. If you are fortunate enough not to be caught, or are fortunate enough not to suffer the appropriate consequences of violating the law, that does not negate the illegality of the act. It simply means you got lucky Quote: No one cares about that when we're talking about inherent illegality. This problem goes back to March 19th, 2003. You know, when you launched the campaign to get those WMDs didn't appear in stockpiles and were refuted by the Intelligence Reports? Also, the same time when Saddam was legally, and officially recognized as the sovereign head of Iraq. Before, of course, you blew up part of the nation, took him out of power illegally, and instituted a representitive government of your choosing. Quote: I'll assume you'll point out that "international policy" is a sovereign decision. And it is. However, while that policy does exist legally within each nation, the actions taken as per said policy must not violate the United Nations charter. This means, that if you violate this policy, (like the US and CoW did), you violate it (as far as I've researched) through the United Nations but not of your own sovereign international policy. This means that they cannot be legally charged in their own country, but the U.N. does have the legitimate authority to mediate, or prosecute, based on that illegality. So, like warranto, I'll ask this: Quote: And please enlighten us, just how is Javaxcx contradicting himself?
You guys aren't reading what hes saying. Your just ganging up on him and since theres multiples of you guys, you all re affirm each other. If he is saying that if the UN doesn't care that it was illegal, then why should you, He's completely right. Why on Earth should you care? Why would you be on here arguing that the war is illegal. If it was illegal thats just fine and dandy by me. I'm an average American, I DONT care... If the UN wants to make something of it let them. The war being illegal or legal in Your Guys Mind's, Nodbuggers, and my mind, have absolutely no bearing on anything, real or fictional, that is destined to occur in the past, present or future. Java is not Leader of the UN. Warranto was not removed from power through this illegal action. Nodbugger is not Bush. None of this bickering matters at all. I'm tired of seeing you guys all attack Nodbugger in a big group. He has no backup, nor does he have a big group who can all post at the same time and barrage one of you guys. Go find something more constructive to do. Add fancy sound systems to your cars, start Saltwater fish tanks, go run for political office. I just can't comprehend how multiple people can spend so much of their time arguing on a topic so pointless.
Make love AFTER war.
Doitle You guys aren't reading what hes saying. Your just ganging up on him and since theres multiples of you guys, you all re affirm each other. If he is saying that if the UN doesn't care that it was illegal, then why should you, He's completely right. Why on Earth should you care? Why would you be on here arguing that the war is illegal. If it was illegal thats just fine and dandy by me. I'm an average American, I DONT care... If the UN wants to make something of it let them. The war being illegal or legal in Your Guys Mind's, Nodbuggers, and my mind, have absolutely no bearing on anything, real or fictional, that is destined to occur in the past, present or future. Java is not Leader of the UN. Warranto was not removed from power through this illegal action. Nodbugger is not Bush. None of this bickering matters at all. I'm tired of seeing you guys all attack Nodbugger in a big group. He has no backup, nor does he have a big group who can all post at the same time and barrage one of you guys. Go find something more constructive to do. Add fancy sound systems to your cars, start Saltwater fish tanks, go run for political office. I just can't comprehend how multiple people can spend so much of their time arguing on a topic so pointless. Close, but you're mistaken on a couple of points. You are right (for the most part) about us not caring that America did this, regardless of its legality. (Well, in case case, I could care less). The point to this whole arguement is that nodbugger absolutely refuses to concede to this idea that despite the "righteousness" of it, it was still illegal. Regardless of whatever proof you put forth in your arguement. Nodbugger even goes as far as to make a mockery of the legal system of every country, state/provence, municipality that there is. Seeing as I'm training to become a lawyer, I take that a little bit personally. Although you're completely right about this legal/illegal thing being a pointless topic. However what it has turned into (or at least seems to) is nodbuggers complete lack of understanding, let alone ill comprehension of how the law works, versus everyone else trying to get him to clue in.
Alright, I got two posts to respond to, and I'm gonna do it separately, since (at least) one of them is gonna be uber-long. Doitle You guys aren't reading what hes saying. Your just ganging up on him and since theres multiples of you guys, you all re affirm each other. Indeed. Well, I AM actually reading what he's saying, and if you were too, you wouldn't be defending it. Notice that Crimson isn't defending him, because she knows he's wrong. I just want to take this moment to clarify something: I'm all for the war on Iraq. Take Saddam out of power. That being said, let's cut the bullshit. It was vigilantism, no more, no less. It was an illegal act of violence perpetrated on a country. It was a terrorist act. And I would have preferred it to be legal. Still would. Doitle ... -stuff that I kinda agree with - ... I'm tired of seeing you guys all attack Nodbugger in a big group. He has no backup, nor does he have a big group who can all post at the same time and barrage one of you guys. And I'm tired of him being an ignorant idiot. If he shuts up, then we won't have anything to reply to, now will we? (<- Is aware of dangling preposition, but doesn't care.) Doitle Go find something more constructive to do. Add fancy sound systems to your cars, start Saltwater fish tanks, go run for political office. I just can't comprehend how multiple people can spend so much of their time arguing on a topic so pointless. And now you've joined us. Congradulations.
Nodbugger Never was Iraq's severity taken away. They were always 'self governed' and never did the US take that away from them. We simply changed their leader. Which is no way violating that. Iraq is still Iraq and it will now be run by the Iraqi people. We in no way took away their sovereignty. Hold on. I just want to quote two specific parts of this again, cause I'm laughing so damn hard. Nodbugger ... never did the US take [their sovereignty] away from them. We simply changed their leader. I'm going to put this very simply for you, cause you seem to have difficulty understanding. The definition of sovereignty, according to Merriam-Webster, definistion 2a is: The Mother-Fuckin Dictionary 2a. supreme power especially over a body politic By changing who ran their government (read:"body politic") we took away their supreme power over it. By definition, we took AWAY THEIR SOVEREIGNTY. Nodbugger I am not evil for not caring if an evil person died. I would not care if Saddam died or if Osama dies. I wouldn't have cared when Hitler died or when Stalin died. They were all evil people that made the world a worse place to live. There is no reason not to kill them. I totally agree. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. Doing the right things in the wrong way (do I sound like a broken record) is still WRONG. Nodbugger About the Iranian mother. If she lived there for twenty years, I'm assuming she was born there then yes she is brainwashed. Iran has a closed media and they brainwash people from the beginning. She has passed that on to you. Take some asshole out of the anti-bush protests in New York and set them down in Iran and they will never say the same things about the US as they were not so long ago. Same with China, Saddam's Iraq, North Korea, Cuba and the countless other shit holes that you fuck tards want to stay. Ahh, but you get upset when SuperFlyingLiberal (sorry, I just think that's a cool nick for ya) says you're brainwashed by Fox News. If the Iranian media is capable of brainwashing people, isn't the American media, also? Or do you just think you're the only one in the world who sees the truth? Nodbugger ViperFud, you are the biggest retard ever. Really? More on this later .... Nodbugger And no New Yorkers never said that. I can show you a video of them saying the complete opposite. They are all pissed at the protesters taking up tax money and all their security forces. Plus all the streets they are taking up. And now you call me a liar. It was on the news; and in fact, as I stated before, Fox News. I think you've been brainwashed. Nodbugger No I never said it is legal f you don't get caught. No where ever have I said that. Oh really? Let's look at that: Nodbugger OF COURSE IT MEANS IT IS LEGAL! I cop doesn't pull you over to tell you that you are abiding the law. Looks to me like you said there that, even if you were speeding, it's only illegal if you get pulled over. It's your fucking words bitch. You said them; and now you can't take them back. Nodbugger You analogy doesn't work dumb ass. Why the fuck would you be pressing charges if I was the one killed? It doesn't work to begin with because it isn't even a similar situation. You are just pulling shit out of your ass. Actually, my analogy works perfectly well. See, anyone who witnesses (or knows about) a murder can go to the police. Just because I don't,l does that make it legal? Nice tactic, by the way; rather than answer the questions that prove you wrong, you avoid them altogether. But it doesn't fool anyone else; we all know you're a dumbshit anyway. Nodbugger Bush never said we are returning Sovereignty to Iraq. He said something that your little mind may have turned into that. Because all of you are so fucking stupid you cannot even understand what someone says, the funny part is you all call him an idiot yes you cannot understand what he says. From CNN.com CNN.com ... the newly sovereign nation now belongs to the people of Iraq ... ... Along with the transfer of sovereignty, the interim government ... Now, how can they be "newly" sovereign if they always were? And how can we transfer it back to them if we never took it in the first place? And in case you won't accept CNN news, here's some stuf from FOXNews.com: President Bush On June the 30th, full sovereignty will be transferred to the interim government. So apparently, he DID say we were returning it. What now, bitch? Nodbugger BTW Java you keep contradicting yourself with that is garble you keep posting. "Hey Sun; this is the pot. You're black." See, I couldn't say "pot" and "kettle," cause java isn't doing the shit you're accusing him of. But you sure as fuck are. Nodbugger If the UN isn't taking away our sovereignty by taking away what we can and can't do how come we are taking away Iraq's sovereignty? We voluntarily surrendered some of our rights when we joined the UN; nothing was "taken away." Iraq didn't ASK us to invade (and it woulda been a LOT better if they had) we just went in. Completely different story. Now. As I promised, we'll get back to your comment about our relative intellects. I am smarter than you. And now I will prove it. I am posting two questions from tests for one of the classes I took at MIT. The first one I got right; the second I got wrong. If you can answer both correctly, then you can say you're smarter than me. If not, then shut the fuck up. the first question, which is so easy that it shouldn't even really be considered a challenge: Let {x_n} be a sequence of positive real numbers such that (x_n)^3 > n. Show that 1/x_n −► 0 as n −► ∞ with respect to the usual metric on R. And the second, which is decently harder: Consider the function α : [0, 1] −► R defined by ½x 0 ≤ x ≤ ½ α(x) = { ½(x + 1) ½ ≤ x ≤1 Show carefully, using results from class, that any monotonic increasing function f : [0, 1] −► R which is continuous at x = ½ is Riemann-Stieltjes integrable with respect to α. Good luck, bitch. ~ViperFUD
Answering questions of humanity is not the general standard of relative intelligence...
Viper, you go to MIT?? My (Yes, Iranian) mother works in the MIT Pediatric Clinic... small world...
Aircraftkiller Answering questions of humanity is not the general standard of relative intelligence... ...says the man who didn't make it out of high school...
SEAL Viper, you go to MIT?? Went to MIT ... I'm on a leave of absence right now. Mahkra graduated from there this past spring, too. Just FYI.
Quote: positive real numbers Hang on, I'm a little rusty but aren't all positive numbers real by default? I thought all Imaginary numbers were extentions of i/j.
I think 4i is a positive imaginery number.
Eh, one thing I have to argue with you about Viper. there are different types of intelligence. I know I could not answer that, but I doubt you could answer some of the stuff I've taken just the same. ie. (Philosophy) 1. Identifying and discussing Monism and Dualism, and what they are thought of by todays philosophers. (Law) 2. Identify the two major types of Law, and their subcategories. Just trying to say that it very well may be that nodbugger is more intelligent than you. I mean, he's intelligent enough to know..... Actually, disregard this post... I can't think of anything to validate his claim. Sorry for this intrusion.
Nodbugger would be lucky to be more intelligent than a shoe.
Everyone else has done a good enough job disproving and discrediting this moron, but this needs to be further addressed: Nodbugger When the people who would be charging us with these actions don't charge us we are not in trouble. Has the UN said it is illegal? NO! http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7705.doc.htm "The Security Council, holding its first debate on Iraq since hostilities began on 19 March, was called on to end the illegal aggression and demand the immediate withdrawal of invading forces, by an overwhelming majority of this afternoon’s 45 speakers." That is dated 26/03/2003. I've posted this for you already; you've obviously chosen to ignore evidence again. Stop being such a "liberal".
This is copied and pasted over from the other thread. Nodbugger, you can't try and weasle your way out of this. You are wrong. "The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections." -- President George W. Bush, May 24th, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html Oh, I'm going to rub it in, too: "On June 30th, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and will not be replaced. The occupation will end, and Iraqis will govern their own affairs." Looks like there was an occupation, too! Straight from the President's mouth. Looks like you've been talking out of your ass, yet again. Quote: ViperFud, you are the biggest retard ever. Trust me kid, he shadows in comparison to what you'll find in a mirror. Quote: No I never said it is legal f you don't get caught. No where ever have I said that. Never have I said you did. Quote: You analogy doesn't work dumb ass. Why the fuck would you be pressing charges if I was the one killed? It doesn't work to begin with because it isn't even a similar situation. You are just pulling shit out of your ass. So ending your life is totally legal because you can't testify for yourself? You know, because you've been impling the whole "it's only illegal if you're caught" rhetoric since you've been posting in this forum. Quote: Bush never said we are returning Sovereignty to Iraq. He said something that your little mind may have turned into that. Because all of you are so fucking stupid you cannot even understand what someone says, the funny part is you all call him an idiot yes you cannot understand what he says. There is something so very ironic about all this. But what is it? Oh, that's right, "you are so fucking stupid you cannot even understand what someone says". Sounds about right, don't you think? Considering he DID say it, and all. Quote: BTW Java you keep contradicting yourself with that is garble you keep posting. Nah, I've corrected myself already. Quote: If the UN isn't taking away our sovereignty by taking away what we can and can't do how come we are taking away Iraq's sovereignty? Ok, you are comparing apples and oranges here kid. I want to tell you something important: Your soveriegnty has never been taken away by the United Nations. I've already discussed this and you've convientantly chose to only read what your "FOXnews inspired" head wants to. I've said it before, it is a damn good thing you can't vote.
warranto (Philosophy) 1. Identifying and discussing Monism and Dualism, and what they are thought of by todays philosophers. (Law) 2. Identify the two major types of Law, and their subcategories. 1. In reverse order, since I feel it's easier to explain that way; Dualism is the belief that there are two parts to reality; or rather, that what we see and experience is not everything that exists. The spiritual vs the physical, and all that shit. Monism isn't. It's like what we see is what it is. (Dualism == DesCartes, Monism == Kant). However, I don't know how "today's" philosophers feel about it, since I think after Socrates and Aristotle, we're just mentally masturbating. We should just read their shit and be like "yeah, that's how it is." 2. My guess: Criminal and Civil or it could be Private and public (similar, but different) or MIlitary and Civilian, though that's similar to answer #2 but not so much with answer #1. After all, military justice isn't subject to the laws of this country. And subdivisions; umm ... shit. It's been forever since I read about this stuff. I give up?
Just for the sake of answering them: 1. Correct. Basically todays philosophers are on a monism binge. 2. Domestic and International would be the two types. Private and Public would be a further breakdown of Substantive, and criminal/civil would be the breakdown of Procedural. (Both breakdowns of Domestic)
This misinterpretation on Nodbugger's part is something else that needs to be addressed: Nodbugger Someone was putting words into his mouth. Quote: On your first question, let me say that this is an issue that the Council debated and considered for a long period. There have been divisions, and we cannot overlook that. Those divisions and issues -- positions of principle that governments and individuals took -- are a matter for the record. I do not think that the resolution that the Council adopted last week is going to change the history of the recent past. However, the Council has given us a solid and a legal basis for our operations in Iraq, and I think at this stage that all the Council members are focused on what they can do to help Iraq and the Iraqi people -- and I think that should be our focus and our emphasis. I think if we pursue our actions on that basis, we will be able to make a difference. Because as he says here , it does not matter to him. You do realize that the Secretary General is not part of the Coalition of the Willing, right? Hell, his own country, Ghana, is not a member of the Coalition of the Willing. What you have highlighted, right there, is Annan saying that the United Nations has a solid and legal base to accomplish their objectives which-- as it might be a surprise to you-- are not those of the Coalition of the Willing. I suggest you read subseqent resolutions past 1441 to find out what those objectives are. Note how he states "at this stage", as in "at the moment" or "at this point" (I have to cover a varienty of venues because your literacy skills lack an unbelievable amount of discipline). He has prioritized how the Iraqi situation needs to be dealt with (for the United Nations, not the Coalition of the Willing), and just like any intelligent person, he understands that the Coalition can't stop now otherwise Iraq will fail and collapse on itself as a new sovereignty. If Annan had any credibility at all, he will follow up that statement with some action against the unlawful aggressors in the near future after Iraq has stablized.
"smarter than" isn't based on answering calculus questions. Intelligence isn't your knowledge, it's your ability to reason, learn, etc... of course I'm going off subject but I don't care. Most people who say "I'm smarter than you" aren't.
Unless you are saying it to Nodbugger, in which case you are always right.
Time to live up this thread. Give comments on this movie: http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_9027.html