Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » How Bush will steal the 2004 Election...
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105839] |
Mon, 02 August 2004 21:57   |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Personally I would have a system that took your votes electronically (touch screen maybe), prevented errors like over or under-voting, then printed a hard copy that you would review and hand in. Then the electronic results could be compared to hard copies without hanging chads and dimpled chads.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105855] |
Tue, 03 August 2004 04:14 |
 |
ViperFUD
Messages: 69
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| warranto |
Heh, someone comes out with "Final Vote", giving each Canditate big heads.
|
LOL ... but Kerry's already got a huge noggin. He's easy to HS from anywhere (kinda like gunner). I think he needs a few more hit points to balance things out. Or a prototype assult suit ...
you should fix that in ren alert.
And shepherds we shall be,
For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from thy hand;
That our feet may swiftly carry out thy command.
And we shall flow a river forth to thee,
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #105858] |
Tue, 03 August 2004 04:43 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
Personally I would have a system that took your votes electronically (touch screen maybe), prevented errors like over or under-voting, then printed a hard copy that you would review and hand in. Then the electronic results could be compared to hard copies without hanging chads and dimpled chads.
|
Hillary Clinton and another senator proposed a voting system where you enter your vote on a touch screen, and then a printer prints out a hard copy of your vote, which you can view through glass, and if the hard copy is who the voter voted for, he hits a button and the vote is submitted, with the paper falling down into a bin for collection. I think it's a really good idea, but it was stonewalled again, by Republicans in Congress just saying, "Trust us."
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #106008] |
Wed, 04 August 2004 08:42 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I'm up in Musoka for a few days, and come back to, not surprisingly, Nodbugger arguing again after he said he wouldn't! Again! That's kind of funny, considering he's been bashing the UN in so many arguments about their "don't care" attitude toward resolutions.
This'll be a large post, and I would thank you Nodbugger, if you don't quote the whole damn thing again (even though you said you wouldn't argue anymore) you before you make your trademark "WTF UR IDIOT I JUS IGNOR WAT U SAY EVEN THO I HAF NO PROVE NAD U DO!!!!!11111" post.
| Nodbugger |
The reason for going to war is what happens afterwords.
|
No, the reason for war is what the justification for sending your troops over there is. In this case, it was Weapons of Mass Destruction, and nothing else. Evidence for this is in President Bush's two speeches prior to the Shock and Awe Campaign.
March 17th, 2003 -- Presidental Address
March 6th, 2003 -- Presidental News Conference
Before you blow your own horn again, I remind you that reasons given for war after the matter of fact are irrelevant because the action is already done based on the reasons given prior to the action taken.
| Quote: |
We want a free Iraq so we go to war.
|
You might, but your president said otherwise. WMD were the reason to go to war, and the repercussions of attacking Iraq on this pretense included ridding Saddam Hussein of power, and naturally, liberating the Iraqi people of his tyranny. Those are not reasons, because a reason (a noun) is:
rea·son
n.
The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction.
The basis to go to Iraq was WMD. Your president justified this with the intelligence he gathered, no matter how messed up it was. Note how at no point in his addresses does the President give a basis or motive pertaining to liberating Iraq of its dictator. He makes numerous references to the Iraqi people and their liberation, however, they are, at no point, bases or motives for the action of going to war with Iraq. They are merely repercussions of going to Iraq on the pretense of WMD. Remember, a repercussion is:
re·per·cus·sion
n.
An often indirect effect, influence, or result that is produced by an event or action.
Now look at it logically: The President tells Saddam Hussein he has 48 hours to leave Iraq. This is the final warning before going to war. If Saddam Hussein had left Iraq, the United States would have gone in to disarm Iraq of its WMD stockpiles (that it didn't have), because it was under this pretense that the United States was going to Iraq in the first place. However, because Saddam did NOT leave Iraq, it must have been because he was not going to give up his authority as dictator of Iraq (or any other reason, really), and therefore, he would have defended his country against an attack. The reason the United States invaded Iraq was the WMD, and Saddam remained in the way dispite his oppurtunity to get OUT of the way, so Saddam would be forcibly taken out of the way to get at the weapons of mass destruction that never existed anyway.
Read that a few times. I know you're going to post saying that its wrong even though you can't prove it otherwise.
| Quote: |
In the UN Majority does not rule.
|
I like this, especially. It seems to back up everything that we've said. If the UN majority does not rule, how does that justify Iraq? I'll play it by your logic, saying there was not a vote:
(even though there WAS a vote, the day OF the Shock and Awe Campaign; possibly just before the first missles and bombs were fired-- and I've already posted the proof for it, but I'll do it again:
List of Security Council Resolutions and their voting results
The Press Release from the UN in reponse to the Iraq-Kuwait situation. Note that this document shows the statements of all the nations on the Security council that objected to the war, and possibly contributed to the vote leading to "NO ACTION", which does NOT mean "NO VOTE", so don't try and pull that card, either.
The actual meeting record of March 19th, 2003.
You can choose to ignore that information... again, but it does not negate its relevancy.)
Now back on topic; lets just assume that there was no vote, like you said: Would that mean that the UN laws are being ignored because there was not a vote pertaining to the invasion of a country within the UN by a nation who is ALSO in the UN? Oh, by the way, you DO need to vote to act on a warning. You know, the warning issued in Resolution 1441? Just because that warning is there, does NOT give your country authority to invade Iraq. And no, the UN resolutions do NOT go over the security council. The resolutions are MADE by the security council based off the UN Charter. The Security council makes these resolutions so they may act within the laws issued by the UN charter. I HIGHLY suggest you read the charter instead of assuming what is in it, or disregarding it -- as you've done so many times already.
So it was still illegal.
I'm done playing your little "No vote" game, because there was a vote: On March 19th, 2003, and I've proven it. Now:
| Quote: |
The war is not illegal. In no way has it ever been illegal. Every thing you have said does not make it illegal.
|
Since the vote given by the UN on March 19, 2003, said "NO ACTION" in regards to the Iraqi-Kuwait situation, and resolution 1441 CLEARLY states:
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"
And the warning states:
"Recalls, in that context [paragraph 4, 11, and 12], that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"
UN Resolution 1441
Note how the warning does NOT give the United States (or any country for that matter) authority to invade Iraq. Nor does it gurantee that Iraq will be invaded. And nor does it say that "You may invade Iraq at will if this last chance is violated". However, the former quote infers that that the United States (and all other member states) MUST leave Iraq alone in terms of effecting the sovereignity and terroritorial integrity of Iraq. Because of these two important quotes, the war in Iraq is ILLEGAL.
| Quote: |
Besides, why are you so agaisnt this war? What is your reasoning.
|
I don't like vigilante justice. It's morally flawed and hypocritical. Yeah, that means many of your favourite superheros are criminals too. Don't let TV fool you, crime is crime -- and you've agreed to that, too.
| Quote: |
And in no way did I lose and in no way is Java intelligent.
|
WARNING: IRONY
| Quote: |
How hard is it to understand my cake analogy.
|
Lets look at your original cake analogy, shall we?
| Quote: |
Say you are baking a cake, you mix all the ingredients together. If they explode that is a repercussion if they make a cake that is a result.
|
The cake exploding is a repercussion and/or a final result of mixing the ingredients together. I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Whatever your reason for making the cake was, unless it was to make it explode, then the explosion is a result of it.
| Quote: |
Our reasons for going to war were for what happens after wards
|
Your reason for war was to disarm Iraq. The only thing that happens DIRECTLY afterwards is Iraq does not have weapons that are to be disarmed. Since Saddam did not leave Iraq, Saddam was crushed along the way. Because of that, the Iraqi people were liberated from him.
Remember, "Disarm Iraq != Liberate people".
"Disarm Iraq = disarming Iraq"
Anything else that happens under that pretense is a REPERCUSSION.
| Quote: |
When you have MI6, CIA, and Russian intelligence telling you Saddam has WMD. And you have Putin telling you Iraq has plans to attack in the United States. When you have 40 years of oppression and murderous rampages. When you the use of chemical weapons on a civilian populace. When you have a man that is willing to do anything to stay in power. He doesn't care who has has to kill. That is not someone you leave there.
|
All the evidence presented there does not equate to legally allowing the United States to invade a member of the United Nations. If the United Nations gave the "ok", then it would be legal. They did not, as per the vote of March 19th, 2003, therefore the actions taken against Iraq were illegal. It is irrelevant whether or not the UN condones what the United States did. Illegal is illegal.
| Quote: |
Democracy worked in Nazi Germany and Democracy worked in Japan. It can certainly work in Iraq.
|
You DO know that Hitler got into power because of democracy, right?
| Quote: |
Either you start being positive or you can stay out of it.
|
So if I were to go after President Bush for being a terrorist because he authorized the invasion of a country unlawfully, you should just stay out of it because you would likely object?
Hmm... Sounds unconstitutional there too. I thought your freedom of speech allowed people to say whatever they wanted. I mean, Michael Moore isn't in prison.
You also seem to think that when anyone says they are against the war, they are against the troops risking their lives. And it's not just you. It's hundreds of disillusioned people. I, for one, commend the soldiers risking their lives and doing their jobs. Just like I commend the soldiers who died defending Iraq. That doesn't mean I commend Saddam Hussein, so don't jump to that conclusion. Anyone who actually fights for their country is a hero, friend, and they have my commendation. Even if they are my enemy.
| Quote: |
13. Well he hasn't admitted he is wrong yet.
|
Well, I will now. I was wrong in saying that Saddam was not technically a terrorist. His unlawful invasion into Kuwait was illegal in terms of UN law. However, if I use that logic, then President Bush is also a terrorist for invading Iraq against UN law. So, it's good enough for me.
| Quote: |
What about how Iraq violated the cease fire on daily basis?
|
Except you are not authorized to act on the cease fire. Darn. The UN Security Council wrote the cease-fire, not the United States. Only the Security Council may say "The cease-fire has been violated, so you may attack at will."
Resolution 687
| Quote: |
I am saying something and so far everything has been fact.
|
lol. Except you can't prove any of it.
| Quote: |
From the beginning he told the UN we will do it whether you like it or not.
|
This statement alone. This VERY statement supports everything we've said. If you don't want to play by the rules, get out.
| Quote: |
They never voted, they have passed resolutions since then.
|
They did vote. They said "NO ACTION". Resolutions condoning the actions as of late do not negate the inherent illegality of the means.
| Quote: |
Find me where It says the war in Iraq was illegal and I will believe you.
|
Ok, lets see here:
The United Nations Charter (link above)
The Security Council vote of March 19th, 2003, (link above)
Resolution 1441 (link above)
It was illegal because international law was ignored and action was taken against Iraq. Remember, the United States also violated Resolution 1441.
This has been a long post. And there are MANY references to things that you should read before you post again. Even though you are prone to "shoot first, think never", I don't expect you to understand what, or how the United Nations works.
At least the people that read this post will understand what is legal and what is not. Oh, and for the record: "MORALITY != LAW". If you act on morality against law, it is illegal.
I'm also going to remind you, you said you weren't arguing anymore. So posting again makes you out to be a liar. 
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #106014] |
Wed, 04 August 2004 09:20 |
 |
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
No, the reason for war is what the justification for sending your troops over there is. In this case, it was Weapons of Mass Destruction, and nothing else. Evidence for this is in President Bush's two speeches prior to the Shock and Awe Campaign.
|
The reasons for where were what happens after the war. Do you not understand that?
Our reason for war was for what happened after the war. Is that so fucking hard to understand? That speech you provided, bush mentions freeing the Iraqi people several times. Repercussion means a bad result. Something un-intended. Freeing the Iraqi people is not a damned repercussion. The Final result of this war was our reason to go to war.
| Quote: |
You might, but your president said otherwise. WMD were the reason to go to war, and the repercussions of attacking Iraq on this pretense included ridding Saddam Hussein of power, and naturally, liberating the Iraqi people of his tyranny. Those are not reasons, because a reason (a noun) is:
rea·son
n.
The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction.
The basis to go to Iraq was WMD. Your president justified this with the intelligence he gathered, no matter how messed up it was. Note how at no point in his addresses does the President give a basis or motive pertaining to liberating Iraq of its dictator. He makes numerous references to the Iraqi people and their liberation, however, they are, at no point, bases or motives for the action of going to war with Iraq. They are merely repercussions of going to Iraq on the pretense of WMD. Remember, a repercussion is:
re·per·cus·sion
n.
An often indirect effect, influence, or result that is produced by an event or action.
|
WMD were one of the reason. Did you ever even listen to any of his speeches? He has mentioned freeing the Iraqi people in several of them. With this warm no one had to tell me anything on why to attack Saddam. I would have said yes no matter what anyones reasons were. WMD is the only iffy reason right now an you fuck heads just cling to it. It was not the main reason, just the only one the could blow people th fuck up. If someone said what concerns you more a big ass missile pointed at you are some starving people, most people would say the big ass missile. So getting rid of the big ass missiles were on every bodies minds because of that fact that you could get your ass blown the fuck up. That is why humanitarian reasons where not hyped about, because they were obvious. Only a dumb ass, yourself, would think there was no humanitarian reason behind the Iraq war. Our goal was to get rid of Saddam. If he had give up, we would have accomplished our goal.
| Quote: |
Now look at it logically: The President tells Saddam Hussein he has 48 hours to leave Iraq. This is the final warning before going to war. If Saddam Hussein had left Iraq, the United States would have gone in to disarm Iraq of its WMD stockpiles (that it didn't have), because it was under this pretense that the United States was going to Iraq in the first place. However, because Saddam did NOT leave Iraq, it must have been because he was not going to give up his authority as dictator of Iraq (or any other reason, really), and therefore, he would have defended his country against an attack. The reason the United States invaded Iraq was the WMD, and Saddam remained in the way dispite his oppurtunity to get OUT of the way, so Saddam would be forcibly taken out of the way to get at the weapons of mass destruction that never existed anyway.
Read that a few times. I know you're going to post saying that its wrong even though you can't prove it otherwise.
|
You call that logical?
Saddam=Bad
^ Thats logical. Saddam was a menace to the world and we got rid of him. No matter how you attempt to spin it, getting rid of Saddam was a good thing.
We would have gone into Iraq no matter what Saddam did. If he gave up it would have been a lot easier for us to get there.
And you cannot prove WMD don't exist, and don't give me some quotes from Powell or anyone else, because they don't prove anything either.
| Quote: |
I like this, especially. It seems to back up everything that we've said. If the UN majority does not rule, how does that justify Iraq? I'll play it by your logic, saying there was not a vote:
(even though there WAS a vote, the day OF the Shock and Awe Campaign; possibly just before the first missiles and bombs were fired-- and I've already posted the proof for it, but I'll do it again:
List of Security Council Resolutions and their voting results
The Press Release from the UN in response to the Iraq-Kuwait situation. Note that this document shows the statements of all the nations on the Security council that objected to the war, and possibly contributed to the vote leading to "NO ACTION", which does NOT mean "NO VOTE", so don't try and pull that card, either.
The actual meeting record of March 19th, 2003.
You can choose to ignore that information... again, but it does not negate its relevancy.)
Now back on topic; lets just assume that there was no vote, like you said: Would that mean that the UN laws are being ignored because there was not a vote pertaining to the invasion of a country within the UN by a nation who is ALSO in the UN? Oh, by the way, you DO need to vote to act on a warning. You know, the warning issued in Resolution 1441? Just because that warning is there, does NOT give your country authority to invade Iraq. And no, the UN resolutions do NOT go over the security council. The resolutions are MADE by the security council based off the UN Charter. The Security council makes these resolutions so they may act within the laws issued by the UN charter. I HIGHLY suggest you read the charter instead of assuming what is in it, or disregarding it -- as you've done so many times already.
So it was still illegal.
I'm done playing your little "No vote" game, because there was a vote: On March 19th, 2003, and I've proven it. Now:
|
None of those in any of your links say anything about the Invasion of Iraq.
It simply was not illegal. Congress voted for it and it passed. Fuck the UN, the United States does not need a permission slip to defend its people. You can go fuck off.
| Quote: |
Note how the warning does NOT give the United States (or any country for that matter) authority to invade Iraq. Nor does it gurantee that Iraq will be invaded. And nor does it say that "You may invade Iraq at will if this last chance is violated". However, the former quote infers that that the United States (and all other member states) MUST leave Iraq alone in terms of effecting the sovereignity and terroritorial integrity of Iraq. Because of these two important quotes, the war in Iraq is ILLEGAL.
|
Find me where the fuck it is illegal, find me where the UN says it is illegal. you can't because it isn't. Now as I say again, you can go fuck yourself.
| Quote: |
don't like vigilante justice. It's morally flawed and hypocritical. Yeah, that means many of your favorite superheros are criminals too. Don't let TV fool you, crime is crime -- and you've agreed to that, too.
|
No it isn't you jack ass. If someone is about to kill your entire family and you stop them, ding ding, vigilante justice.
Someone steals a womans purse and you beat them down, ding ding, vigilante justice.
Now again, go fuck yourself.
| Quote: |
The cake exploding is a repercussion and/or a final result of mixing the ingredients together. I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Whatever your reason for making the cake was, unless it was to make it explode, then the explosion is a result of it.
|
You people cannot understand a simple analogy.
Let me see if I can make it easier for the little kids to understand.
Your goal is to make a cake.
What do you need to make a cake?
You need in ingredients to make a cake.
What do you do with the ingredients?
You mix them.
What happens after you mix and bake the ingredients?
You have a cake?
Now why did you mix the ingredients?
To make a cake!
Is that easier to understand?
In order to make a cake you need to mix the ingredients.
In order for you to free the Iraqi people you need to invade Iraq.
| Quote: |
Your reason for war was to disarm Iraq. The only thing that happens DIRECTLY afterwards is Iraq does not have weapons that are to be disarmed. Since Saddam did not leave Iraq, Saddam was crushed along the way. Because of that, the Iraqi people were liberated from him.
Remember, "Disarm Iraq != Liberate people".
"Disarm Iraq = disarming Iraq"
Anything else that happens under that pretense is a REPERCUSSIONp
|
The end result of liberation was our goal, do you understand now...after I have said it 100s of times.
You enter a contest to win a prize.
You mix ingredients to make a cake.
Your reasoning for doing the original action, is what happens after wards.
That is a result, not a repercussion.
Repercussion has such a negative connotation.
| Quote: |
All the evidence presented there does not equate to legally allowing the United States to invade a member of the United Nations. If the United Nations gave the "OK", then it would be legal. They did not, as per the vote of March 19th, 2003, therefore the actions taken against Iraq were illegal. It is irrelevant whether or not the UN condones what the United States did. Illegal is illegal
|
The UN did not vote on the invasion of Iraq. Case closed. We do not need the UNs approval. They can also go fuck themselves.
| Quote: |
You DO know that Hitler got into power because of democracy, right?
|
Actually no he wasn't, he was vice Fuhrer, as I like to say. His boss wasn't doing so good so He named himself Fuhrer. Hitler was not elected. But the Nazi part was.
| Quote: |
So if I were to go after President Bush for being a terrorist because he authorized the invasion of a country unlawfully, you should just stay out of it because you would likely object?
Hmm... Sounds unconstitutional there too. I thought your freedom of speech allowed people to say whatever they wanted. I mean, Michael Moore isn't in prison.
You also seem to think that when anyone says they are against the war, they are against the troops risking their lives. And it's not just you. It's hundreds of disillusioned people. I, for one, commend the soldiers risking their lives and doing their jobs. Just like I commend the soldiers who died defending Iraq. That doesn't mean I commend Saddam Hussein, so don't jump to that conclusion. Anyone who actually fights for their country is a hero, friend, and they have my commendation. Even if they are my enemy.
|
It wasn't unlawful. Our constitution says we can do it, the UN hasn't said anything. Only dumb ass like yourself are bitching about it.
Don't talk about the America Constitution. You probably have never even read it, as your ignorance of it shows. Yes people have freedom of speech. But only the government cannot stop them. I private citizen cannot violate someone else free speech. So If I owned all the move theaters in the US, since I am a private citizen. I can ban Michael Moore's movies from showing there.
It is hypocritical to say you are against the war and for the troops. That is like saying I am against the crime but for the criminal. Soldiers don't want your anti-war attitude. The know what is really going on there and they don't want some Canadian pussy telling them what to think when they are actually living it.
| Quote: |
Well, I will now. I was wrong in saying that Saddam was not technically a terrorist. His unlawful invasion into Kuwait was illegal in terms of UN law. However, if I use that logic, then President Bush is also a terrorist for invading Iraq against UN law. So, it's good enough for me
|
Even if Bush did break UN law, it does not make him a terrorist. Is he blowing up day cares on purpose?
I hate you people, why don't you look past you stupid fucking ideology and realize who the real fucking terrorist.
I can't wait until Toronto gets blown off the earth, or Paris gets covered in anthrax before you jackasses wake up realize. Sitting there is not going to fix shit.
[quote]Except you are not authorized to act on the cease fire. Darn. The UN Security Council wrote the cease-fire, not the United States. Only the Security Council may say "The cease-fire has been violated, so you may attack at will."
Resolution 687
[/quote[]
Sorry, but we are. We can start up Korea again if we wanted to. And your link does not work.
The rest is utter crap.
You are interpreting laws. And making shit up at the same time. The UN has not come out against it.
It is like when people refuse to press charges.
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #106057] |
Wed, 04 August 2004 11:26 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
LMAO. Wow, that was better than watching Miller cut up Kerry last night.
| Nodbugger |
The reasons for where were what happens after the war. Do you not understand that?
|
First of all, that sentence doesn't make a shred of sense. The reasons for something are the basis or motivation for something. They are also the declarations to justify doing an act.
At NO point in Bush's speeches does he give the reason (the justification, the basis, the motive) for going into Iraq to liberate the people. Your literacy skills are pathetic. Hell, you were quoting his speech totally out of context and tried, vainly I might add, to prove your point. You are still making up information that is not in his speeches. It's funny how you are the ONLY person who has posted who thinks the way you do. Thank God.
| Quote: |
Our reason for war was for what happened after the war.
|
The reason for war was to disarm Iraq. That is all. Anything you've said otherwise is made up, taken out of context, and wrong. Oh, and you haven't unequivocally proven any of your points either. So anything you say isn't crediable, either.
| Quote: |
That speech you provided, bush mentions freeing the Iraqi people several times.
|
I already said that. You're forgetting to mention that he doesn't mention "we are going to Iraq to free the people". Nor does he infer it. You're making shit up. THERE IS NO TIGER CLAW AND NO PEN MISSLE.
| Quote: |
Repercussion means a bad result.
|
It's only given the negative connotation to you. Ever hear of the phrase: "Two birds with one stone"?
| Quote: |
Freeing the Iraqi people is not a damned repercussion. The Final result of this war was our reason to go to war.
|
Sorry kid, it is a repercussion. And the final result of this war is yet to be determined, too.
| Quote: |
WMD were one of the reason.
|
According to your president, it was the only reason.
| Quote: |
With this warm no one had to tell me anything on why to attack Saddam.
|
Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. I don't even know what you're trying to say there.
| Quote: |
WMD is the only iffy reason right now an you fuck heads just cling to it. It was not the main reason, just the only one the could blow people th fuck up.
|
Actually, it's the only reason, and its "iffyness" is irrelevant because the law was broken when the first bomb dropped.
| Quote: |
If someone said what concerns you more a big ass missile pointed at you are some starving people, most people would say the big ass missile. So getting rid of the big ass missiles were on every bodies minds because of that fact that you could get your ass blown the fuck up.
|
I would agree. Except the law says I cannot. I would go through the proper channels and get authorization before I acted on something as big as sending fathers, mothers, and children to war.
| Quote: |
That is why humanitarian reasons where not hyped about, because they were obvious.
|
Except you can't play the "implied" game when you're sending people to WAR.
| Quote: |
Our goal was to get rid of Saddam.
|
Your "goal" was to disarm Iraq. Saddam was merely in the way. Using your logic, if he fled into Iran, you would launch a Shock and Awe campaign in Iran too? What if he escaped to Russia, or any other place? That isn't a reason for war. It is a repercussion of Saddam not leaving Iraq in 48 hours when he was warned.
| Quote: |
Saddam=Bad
^ Thats logical. Saddam was a menace to the world and we got rid of him. No matter how you attempt to spin it, getting rid of Saddam was a good thing.
|
I never said that ridding the world of Saddam was a bad thing. I said the means to go it were bad. You're putting words in my mouth, and still miscontruing it. 
| Quote: |
And you cannot prove WMD don't exist, and don't give me some quotes from Powell or anyone else, because they don't prove anything either.
|
That's funny, you can't prove they do exist. Neither could the CIA, MI6, Russia, or anyone else appearantly. In correct context, of course.
| Quote: |
None of those in any of your links say anything about the Invasion of Iraq.
|
That's because the invasion hadn't HAPPENED yet. They also don't explicitly say "You may not invade Iraq, President Bush" because that was not the reason the Security Council was meeting for. They were debating whether or not action SHOULD be taken, and it was inconclusive. The United States merely acted thereafter in total disregard to the followup to that meeting. Did you even READ it?
| Quote: |
It simply was not illegal. Congress voted for it and it passed.
|
Too bad Congress can't go around the policy of the UN. The fact of the matter is, when you sign a contract, you are in full agreement with all of the terms of said contract. In this case, it's the Charter (which I'm guessing you've chosen not to read) of the United Nations. When you violate your contract, no matter who you are, or your justification for it, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW.
| Quote: |
Fuck the UN, the United States does not need a permission slip to defend its people.
|
Thanks for that confirmation that you are wrong. Your country signed a contract with the UN 60 or so years ago, and on March 19th, 2003, they violated it. UH OH! Broken law! The Charter says you need permission to invade one of the member states. You didn't get permission, and you invaded anyway. It is irrelevant how horrible the person ruling the member state is, it is still illegal to be a vigilante. Not only that, you overthrew the government at the time. That's illegal too. Coup D'etats are illegal.
| Quote: |
Find me where the fuck it is illegal, find me where the UN says it is illegal. you can't because it isn't. Now as I say again, you can go fuck yourself.
|
I've already shown you the documents proving the action was illegal. You've obviously chosen to ignore that evidence, again. It doesn't matter, intelligent people may read the documents and know for certain the actions of March 19, 2003 were illegal in accordance with international law. I don't really need to convince you, you can't even vote. That's a good thing, by the way.
| Quote: |
No it isn't you jack ass. If someone is about to kill your entire family and you stop them, ding ding, vigilante justice.
Someone steals a womans purse and you beat them down, ding ding, vigilante justice.
|
The only difference here is that I would be willing, and I would fully recommend lawful action against me in either case. Your president, does not.
| Quote: |
Your goal is to make a cake.
What do you need to make a cake?
You need in ingredients to make a cake.
What do you do with the ingredients?
You mix them.
What happens after you mix and bake the ingredients?
You have a cake?
Now why did you mix the ingredients?
To make a cake!
In order to make a cake you need to mix the ingredients.
In order for you to free the Iraqi people you need to invade Iraq.
|
I hope you can see why this is irrelevant, now. The liberation of the Iraqi people was not a reason for the war. You used this analogy in the silly idea that it was a reason. It was not. The speeches prove this.
| Quote: |
The end result of liberation was our goal, do you understand now...after I have said it 100s of times.
|
It was not. The speeches say the reasons for war was disarmiment. Not liberation. When Saddam is removed from power, the United States must help rebuild the Iraqi government. Since the reason for war wasn't to over throw the government, and only to get the weapons, anything else is a REPERCUSSION.
| Quote: |
Your reasoning for doing the original action, is what happens after wards.
|
The definition for reason says otherwise. The basis or motivation for an act. The declaration of justification for an act. Not "what happens after an act".
| Quote: |
Repercussion has such a negative connotation.
|
Yeah, that's subjective.
| Quote: |
The UN did not vote on the invasion of Iraq. Case closed.
|
Actually, they did vote on the issue of Iraq. They said "NO ACTION." I see you've chosen to ignore evidence again.
| Quote: |
We do not need the UNs approval. They can also go fuck themselves.
|
Sure you do! You signed a contract with the UN saying you'll play by the rules. You gave yourself the ball'n'chain, and now you're whining because it's a little too tight.
| Quote: |
Actually no he wasn't, he was vice Fuhrer, as I like to say. His boss wasn't doing so good so He named himself Fuhrer. Hitler was not elected. But the Nazi part was.
|
Wrong, again.
"Upon the death of Hindenburg in August 1934, Hitler was the consensus successor."
| Quote: |
It wasn't unlawful. Our constitution says we can do it, the UN hasn't said anything.
|
Your "rights and freedoms" of your constitution are only valid to United States citizens. You cannot apply your rights and freedoms to people who are not American citizens. The UN charter, on the other hard, infers that you cannot go and invade whoever you want for whatever reason you want. Instead of assuming what's in it, READ IT.
| Quote: |
Don't talk about the America Constitution. You probably have never even read it, as your ignorance of it shows.
|
I'll talk about whatever I want in here. Crimson allows me to say what I want. Oh, and I have read your constitution. Looks like you haven't, though.
| Quote: |
It is hypocritical to say you are against the war and for the troops.
|
Actually, the soldiers are the pawns here. Your crook for a president says "Go" and its their job, THEIR JOB, to do it. If they don't, they get thrown in prison, and they lose the money they need to support their families. It is a shame that the soldiers in the coalition are at the mercy of the orders of President Bush. That doesn't mean that I don't like them. I don't like the man pushing the button.
| Quote: |
The know what is really going on there and they don't want some Canadian pussy telling them what to think when they are actually living it.
|
Bigotry isn't cool, kid. Haven't you been taught that in school?
| Quote: |
Even if Bush did break UN law, it does not make him a terrorist. Is he blowing up day cares on purpose?
|
Yeah, two wrongs don't make a right. If he broke international law, and used "unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." then he is a terrorist.
UH OH! He did. Whoops.
| Quote: |
I hate you people, why don't you look past you stupid fucking ideology and realize who the real fucking terrorist.
|
Sorry kid. I don't have to agree with the law. I merely have to abide by it. What my morality says and what the law says are two completely different things. That is a concept you seem to be forgetting.
| Quote: |
I can't wait until Toronto gets blown off the earth, or Paris gets covered in anthrax before you jackasses wake up realize. Sitting there is not going to fix shit.
|
"fixing shit" is subjective. By breaking the law, I'd say your president has done a fair bit of damage himself. Sure, fixing Iraq up is a good thing, but the ends don't justify the means. Another concept you seem to be unfamiliar with.
| Quote: |
Sorry, but we are. We can start up Korea again if we wanted to. And your link does not work.
|
Oh drat, there you go making conclusions without any proof again.
Resolution 687
It's on a different site, but it's the same resolution.
| Quote: |
You are interpreting laws. And making shit up at the same time. The UN has not come out against it.
|
I'm looking at what the law says, what happened prior to, just before, during, and after the events of March 19th, 2003, and informing people like you, who are so disillusioned on this matter that they will just absorb everything CNN has poured out to them.
READ THE DOCUMENTS.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #106070] |
Wed, 04 August 2004 12:03 |
|
ViperFUD
Messages: 69
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Alright.
Gotta chime in real fast.
java:
You keep using the word "infer" where you mean "imply". Cut that shit out. It's fuckin annoying.
Nodbugger:
You keep talking out your ass rather than thinking about shit. Cut it out. It's fucking annoying.
I said it once already, but i'm going to cut and paste it here since you obviously didn't listen before, as to how results relate to reasons.
<FLASHBACK>
Your cake analogy is stupid, flawed, and contributes nothing to the discussion. All you're saying is that a "reason" causes an action. Something you should remember: desire for a certain result can be a reason ... but just because a result happens does NOT, repeat does NOT make it a reason.
Now, this is the natural progression of things:
reason -> action -> result/repercussion
and FYI, a "repercussion" is the exact same thing as a "result," except in common terminology, a "repercussion" creates secondary results.
Lets look at the war on Iraq.
"They have weapons of mass destruction" (reason) ->
"We get Saddam" (action) ->
"The Iraqi people are free" (result), "The world hates the US" (repercussion)
What Bush did, however, about 1/2 through "Operation Fuck Iraq up" was say, "Oh, shit, no WMD's ... umm, let's call it 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.'"
</FLASHBACK>
Now, before you call me unintelligent or some shit, I think you really need to check yourself. Cause I will hit you with all guns blazing.
And for the record, java is about twice as intelligent as you. Just FYI.
~Viper
And shepherds we shall be,
For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from thy hand;
That our feet may swiftly carry out thy command.
And we shall flow a river forth to thee,
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #106074] |
Wed, 04 August 2004 12:18 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I didn't think someone this stupid could exist.
I'm not even go to reply to that post because it is all Bull Shit.
1. Tell me where the UN has said it is illegal, not where you say it is. The UN. Where have they said it?
2. The speeches say we are going to liberate and Free the Iraqi people. Someone does something because of what happens afterward.
Examples:
Someone wants money
So they rob a bank
Assuming they get away with it they ow have money
Wants Money=reason
Robbing the bank=action
Got money= Result
Is it really that hard for you to understand?
No where does Bush say, "Went went in only for WMD"
No where has he said they you just keep making things up. He says he wants yo liberate the Iraqi people, I knew that is what was going to end up happening. I knew we were going to get rid of Saddam. Our goal from the beginning was to get rid of Saddam. We were not leaving without capturing or killing him. Bush said that many times. He mentions every reason you could need to go to Iraq. You just keep saying wmd was the only reason. which simply is not true.
3. You are a hypocrite and need to shut up. you say the way we did it was bad. Well Mr. I know everything...how do you suggest we would do it? He wasn't going to do it by himself. And giving him time obviously doesn't work. Invading was the only way. So unless you come up with a better more feasible idea then you have no room to talk.
4. The Un did not vote and at this moment in time they are not saying it is illegal. Only people who are not the UN are saying it was illegal. If the UN won't say it then it isn't. Simple as that.
5. Congress can go around what ever they want. the UN does not rule the US. Like I said before, the US does not need a permission slip to defend itself.
6.I do not care what documents say. You are wrong about them. You are interpreting them differently than the UN. They never said it was illegal so it isn't illegal.
7.Well you are an idiot for not doing anything. Some people can;t wait for the police. Every time you see on TV about someone that stopped a murder or robbery. You are against people acting by themselves. you are an idiot if you believe. Stay in Canada. Man I can;t wait for Canada to blow up. You are a bunch of idiots up there.
8. The result of the war was the reason to go to war. Why do you keep lying? I pointed it out in the speech. If it was not a fucking reason why did he mention it so many times? If he didn't want to do it why did we? If it was not a reason why is so much energy focused on it? The Results of the fucking where were our reasons. Our reasons where to get rid of Saddam and liberate the Iraqi people. You just keep lying.
9. "Upon the death of Hindenburg in August 1934, Hitler was the consensus successor."
Ya, jackass. He was not elected. He was a successor. now go die.
He was not elected.
10. I am totally correct about the constitution. If Crimson wanted to ban you she could. If you were babbling outside a store the owner can force you to leave. a private citizen can stop another private citizens free speech. The government cannot.
11, i think you forget both parents at one point where in the Army. My dad was in Iraq...twice. And may be going to Afghanistan. He agrees with the war and has been waiting for this to happen since 1991 when he was there first.
Every soldier who was in the Gulf War, would say we need to take out Saddam. every soldier in this war will say we need to take out Saddam. They all know what they are doing is a great thing. Have you ever even talked to American soldier, do me a favor...never talk on their behalf again.
12. No Bush is not a terrorist. Saddam is a terrorist. Osama is a terrorist. You are a jackass for even attempting to compare them.
13. the means...congress voted. We kept our own sovereignty and Iraq is free. The UN isn't complaining only jackasses like you. I don't see where I am wrong.
14. Where does it say we cannot start up the cease-fire? If Iraq attacks us, we can get rid of it and do what we want.
15. I don't watch CNN.
I listen to people that have actually been to Iraq. The people who have suffered. The people are happy. The Iraqis that are very Happy about this.
Now until you find what i ask for, you are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #106085] |
Wed, 04 August 2004 12:56 |
|
ViperFUD
Messages: 69
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
I didn't think someone this stupid could exist.
|
Neither did I. But apparently, you do.
| Nodbugger |
I'm not even go to reply to that post because it is all Bull Shit.
|
Ok, good. So this is the end of your post?
... Oh, apparently not ...
| Nodbugger |
1. Tell me where the UN has said it is illegal, not where you say it is. The UN. Where have they said it?
|
HE DID. LET ME REPOST IT FOR YOU, SINCE YOU ARE AN IDIOT:
List of Security Council Resolutions and their voting results
The Press Release from the UN in reponse to the Iraq-Kuwait situation.
| Nodbugger |
2. The speeches say we are going to liberate and Free the Iraqi people. Someone does something because of what happens afterward.
Examples:
Someone wants money
So they rob a bank
Assuming they get away with it they ow have money
Wants Money=reason
Robbing the bank=action
Got money= Result
Is it really that hard for you to understand?
No where does Bush say, "Went went in only for WMD"
|
He says, "We're going in to disarm Iraq". That's it. Just because something is going to happen does NOT make it a reason. But apparently you're some kinda tard kid who doesn't understand this.
| Nodbugger |
3. You are a hypocrite and need to shut up. you say the way we did it was bad. Well Mr. I know everything...how do you suggest we would do it? He wasn't going to do it by himself. And giving him time obviously doesn't work. Invading was the only way. So unless you come up with a better more feasible idea then you have no room to talk.
|
You're an idiot and need to shut up. You are making EVERY AMERICAN in these forums look like an idiot by being one yourself. MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT. Just because we can go in and blow them the fuck up does not mean we SHOULD. The UN was resolving the situation through diplomatic means. Embargos, tariffs, and lots of pressure. Had things worked out the way they SHOULD have, the Iraqi people would have risen up in a revolution against Saddam themselves (perhaps requesting US help) and things would be a lot better off.
| Nodbugger |
4. The Un did not vote and at this moment in time they are not saying it is illegal. Only people who are not the UN are saying it was illegal. If the UN won't say it then it isn't. Simple as that.
|
Actually, the UN IS saying it's illegal, which is why there is such a big fuss about things in the UN right now. Read a newspaper.
| Nodbugger |
5. Congress can go around what ever they want. the UN does not rule the US. Like I said before, the US does not need a permission slip to defend itself.
|
ROFLMAO. WRONG. Congress does NOT have the right to do "what ever they want." Here's an analogy: South Carolina says "we don't care what the US says; we can do whatever we want." result? Civil war.
The US is part of the UN. We voluntarily agreed to follow the rules and mandates it set forth. We cannot just ignore them because we don't like them anymore. The US canNOT just do whatever it wants.
| Nodbugger |
6.I do not care what documents say. You are wrong about them. You are interpreting them differently than the UN. They never said it was illegal so it isn't illegal.
|
You should care what documents say. God fucking damn, man. How can you say this and expect to be taken seriously at all? Think before you speak.
| Nodbugger |
7.Well you are an idiot for not doing anything. Some people can;t wait for the police. Every time you see on TV about someone that stopped a murder or robbery. You are against people acting by themselves. you are an idiot if you believe. Stay in Canada. Man I can;t wait for Canada to blow up. You are a bunch of idiots up there.
|
Just FYI, java voluntarily joined the Canadian military. He wants to Fix Shit that's Fucked Up. But the important thing is to do it in the Right Way. Why can't you seem to understand that the ends never justify the means?
| Nodbugger |
8. The result of the war was the reason to go to war. Why do you keep lying? I pointed it out in the speech. If it was not a fucking reason why did he mention it so many times? If he didn't want to do it why did we? If it was not a reason why is so much energy focused on it? The Results of the fucking where were our reasons. Our reasons where to get rid of Saddam and liberate the Iraqi people. You just keep lying.
|
I almost can't follow this drivel. Are you mentally retarded?
I think what you're saying here is: "The results of the war are the reasons to go to war. If they weren't reasons, then why did he mention them?" Now, after you wipe the spittle off your lips, allow me to answer: they were effects, results, yes. But that does NOT make them a reason. And if you notice, Bush said, "We are going to war to rid Iraq of WMD's" (paraphrase). He did NOT say, "We are going to war to free the Iraqi people!" At least, not until we failed to find WMD's.
| Nodbugger |
9. "Upon the death of Hindenburg in August 1934, Hitler was the consensus successor."
Ya, jackass. He was not elected. He was a successor. now go die.
He was not elected.
|
I think you need to learn English.
con·sen·sus
1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports... from the border -- John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
ie. The consensus of the vote - the result (why do you have so much trouble with this concept?)
| Nodbugger |
10. I am totally correct about the constitution. If Crimson wanted to ban you she could. If you were babbling outside a store the owner can force you to leave. a private citizen can stop another private citizens free speech. The government cannot.
|
Actually, you are totally WRONG about the Constitution; if you're babbling outside a store the owner can't force you to leave unless you're endangering the safty of others.
I think you need to actually READ the Constitution rather than just assuming based on what you saw on TV.
| Nodbugger |
11, i think you forget both parents at one point where in the Army. My dad was in Iraq...twice. And may be going to Afghanistan. He agrees with the war and has been waiting for this to happen since 1991 when he was there first.
Every soldier who was in the Gulf War, would say we need to take out Saddam. every soldier in this war will say we need to take out Saddam. They all know what they are doing is a great thing. Have you ever even talked to American soldier, do me a favor...never talk on their behalf again.
|
Perhaps. but just because people want something does NOT make it morally right. I think YOU need to STFU before talking on their behalf; you make them look like small minded idiots. I know they aren't; I support our troops; but i think you could best support our troops by not supporting them so vocally.
| Nodbugger |
12. No Bush is not a terrorist. Saddam is a terrorist. Osama is a terrorist. You are a jackass for even attempting to compare them.
|
Hmmm ... what would you call someone who goes into someone else's country and blows stuf up? (hint: who am I talking about here? Bush, Saddam, or Osama? The fact that you can't tell which one I mean should tell you something.)
| Nodbugger |
13. the means...congress voted. We kept our own sovereignty and Iraq is free. The UN isn't complaining only jackasses like you. I don't see where I am wrong.
|
Actually, Iraq LOST it's sovereignty, the UN IS complaining, and you are wrong. Iraq is free again, but they DID lose their sovereingty for a while. And they still don't have it back; they're still under our thumb.
| Nodbugger |
14. Where does it say we cannot start up the cease-fire? If Iraq attacks us, we can get rid of it and do what we want.
|
What the fuck? How was any of that a cease-fire? It was a fucking START-fire. What we did to Afganistan, ok, that was justifiable. But what we did to Iraq? WRONG. If they had NO WMD's, then they weren't a threat to us, and we had no right to go in after them. Which is why WMD's are the ONLY ACCEPTABLE reason for the war.
| Nodbugger |
15. I don't watch CNN.
I listen to people that have actually been to Iraq. The people who have suffered. The people are happy. The Iraqis that are very Happy about this.
Now until you find what i ask for, you are wrong.
|
Maybe you should. Or at least some news. I don't understand why you think saying "I have no knowledge of this situation" will help your argument. Individual soldiers have little to no knowledge of the big picture. That's not their problem. THeir problem is killing Habib before he kills them. That's it.
I think you need to seriously Shut The Fuck Up before you get WTFOwned again. You look like an idiot to all of us. Grow up, read the Constitution, read the UN Charter, fuckin read the Nuremburg trial transcripts and resolutions before you speak again.
If Bush loses this election, it won't be because of liberals. It'll be because of jackass conservatives like you who keep running their mouths instead of sitting down and shutting up.
And shepherds we shall be,
For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from thy hand;
That our feet may swiftly carry out thy command.
And we shall flow a river forth to thee,
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #106121] |
Wed, 04 August 2004 15:05 |
cokemaster
Messages: 144
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Quote: |
I have read all these documents.
And I am correct about every single one.
Neither of you have yet to prove anything.
|
I wonder if you got dropped on your head at birth. Java has provided time and time again clear links to documents proving his position. I understand, and I'm sure most people would as well.
I don't know why you insist to stick to your act of that the US can do no wrong. It doesn't prove anything, except your stupidity in the manner. You remind me of someone on the pitts forums by the name of VM - any relation?
Thats all I have to write at the moment, I have a history lecture that I have to attend in about 12 minutes.
Remember, Friends don't let friends play Reborn!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #106123] |
Wed, 04 August 2004 15:24 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
I didn't think someone this stupid could exist.
|
You're here. I'm just as surprised as you are.
| Quote: |
1. Tell me where the UN has said it is illegal, not where you say it is. The UN. Where have they said it?
|
Lets see here... where in the UN does it say that invading another member state without authorization is illegal? Lets see... OH! The charter you never read!
The Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VII, Article 39:
"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Looks to me that the Security Council decides the measures that will be taken. Not the United States.
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."
And 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."
Looks to me that Article 41 & 42 give the power of authorization to the Security Council! Not the United States!
Article 43:
"All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes."
This one says that you need to pass vital data through the Security Council through a "special agreement". Then the Security Council decides how many forces are to be deployed... and where! Then these agreements are negotiated between the Security Council and the Member States. Hmm... Maybe there is a typo, but I don't see "You may invade a member nation on pre-emptive circumstances without the authorization of the Security Council."
I really like this one: Article 46
"Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee."
Pretty self explanitory. Application of armed force is made by the security council, not the United States.
Article 48
"The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members."
This one says that the Security Council makes a decision, and the member states are the ones who carry it out. I don't know about the rest of society, but I sure as hell don't remember the Security Council saying "Iraq is to be invaded."
Oh, I like this one the most:
"HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."
Now lets take a look at Resolution 1441, shall we?
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"
Do you remember a resolution before March 19th, 2003 saying that this commitment may be disregarded? I don't. And likely neither will any other sane person.
Now lets look at what happened, shall we? In fact, lets jump to March 17th, 2003.
The President gives a speech announcing that Saddam Hussein must leave Iraq in 48 hours or a military conflict will break out. Your president states:
"For the last four and a half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that council's longstanding demands. Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced that they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq."
This resolution was debated on two days after this speech.
The results of this debate can be viewed here:
Results of the resolution debate on March 19th, 2003 in terms of the Iraqi-Kuwait situation
Note that debate wasn't on whether the US is allowed to invade or not. It was a debate on the resolution to allow any invasion into Iraq. The resolution failed. The vote on it was objected to by MANY member states:
Lets see... I'm not going to paste the entire statement from each nation mentioned that objected to the war, but I'll paste the name of the nation and give you the URL to the file so you can read it yourself. Even though I know you won't:
JOSCHKA FISCHER, Deputy Chancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany.
DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of France
IGOR S. IVANOV, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
FAROUK AL-SHARA’, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Syria
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan)
ADOLFO AGUILAR ZINSER (Mexico)
WANG YINGFAN (China)
MOHAMMED ALDOURI (Iraq)
The Press conference may be viewed here.
The Meeting Record may be viewed here.
At the end of the Press Release:
"Secretary-General KOFI ANNAN fully shared the regrets expressed by many Council members at the fact that it had not been possible to reach a common position. “Whatever our differing views on this complex issue, we must all feel that this is a sad day for the United Nations and the international community.� Millions of people around the world shared that sense of disappointment, and were deeply alarmed by the prospect of imminent war. He paid tribute to the United Nations staff, both international and Iraqi, who had worked so hard in Iraq up to the last possible moment. That included the inspectors, whose work had now sadly been suspended."
At no point does it give the United States authorization to go into Iraq. At NO point in those documents does it say "You may act upon the warning issued in Resolution 1441". And at NO point does it say "You may act on the cease-fire from resolution 687". The very fact that the United States DID act dispite their lack of authorization proves that it was ILLEGAL.
| Quote: |
2. The speeches say we are going to liberate and Free the Iraqi people.
|
Those speeches say that America is going to Iraq to disarm the WMD that were thought to be there. At no point does it say "we are going to Iraq for the reason to liberate the people".
In fact, if Bush DID say that, then the war would still be illegal. Resolution 1441 says:
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"
Liberation would therefore be illegal since it was not authorized by the UN, and this commitment was never suspended.
| Quote: |
He says he wants yo liberate the Iraqi people
|
Actually, he says: (This is when he begins to address the issue of liberation as a repercussion of invading Iraq)
"As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free."
That VERY word: "AS". That word implies that Liberation is a side-effect. "As this is happening, this will happen". NOT a reason. You've perverted literacy, now cut it out.
| Quote: |
3. You are a hypocrite and need to shut up.
|
WARNING: IRONY
Remember kid, you were the one who said he wouldn't be arguing anymore. Twice now. And twice, you've replied in argument.
| Quote: |
you say the way we did it was bad.
|
Anything that is against the law is inherently wrong. Ever hear the saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intention"?
| Quote: |
Well Mr. I know everything...how do you suggest we would do it?
|
I would trust the UN to deal with the situation as they have been. The Quarterly report I posted a while back was evidence that Saddam's weapons were being destoryed. In fact, they were reported to be disarming up to March 18th, 2003, when the inspectors were whisped out of the nation for their own safety. I know you didn't read that report, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing this. I certainly wouldn't have sent thousands of fathers, mothers, and children to war on the SHAKEY PRETENSE that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons. Which, by the way, turned out to be false. Whoops!
I completely agree with the Russian Federation's resolve to the issue. You can find it in the links I've provided.
| Quote: |
4. The Un did not vote and at this moment in time they are not saying it is illegal. Only people who are not the UN are saying it was illegal. If the UN won't say it then it isn't. Simple as that.
|
Ho boy, where do I begin with THIS one. After I stop laughing at your total ignorance, I suggest you read those links I've provided. There was a debate on the issue of Iraq, and the vote was inconclusive. THAT DOES NOT EQUATE TO "YOU MAY INVADE IRAQ".
And another thing: Are you trying to say "It's not illegal if you don't get caught"? Because thats what I got from that statement.
| Quote: |
5. Congress can go around what ever they want. the UN does not rule the US. Like I said before, the US does not need a permission slip to defend itself.
|
Congress can do whatever they want legally within the United States. They have no authority in international dealing with invasion of a member state of the United Nations. You gave up that "freedom" when your country signed the Charter of the United Nations. Don't like it? Get out.
[quote]6.I do not care what documents say.[/url]
LOL. I think that summed up your crediablity.
| Quote: |
They never said it was illegal so it isn't illegal.
|
Well, after reading the charter and the resolutions, it is.
| Quote: |
7.Well you are an idiot for not doing anything. Some people can;t wait for the police. Every time you see on TV about someone that stopped a murder or robbery. You are against people acting by themselves. you are an idiot if you believe.
|
Who said I would do nothing? I surely didn't. You, on the other hand, have put words in my mouth again. They're miscontrued and you don't know what they mean. I don't want them in my mouth.
I still think you don't understand what vigilante justice is. It is ILLEGAL. It still has a good outcome in many cases, but it is nonetheless ILLEGAL.
| Quote: |
Stay in Canada. Man I can;t wait for Canada to blow up. You are a bunch of idiots up there.
|
Keep this kind of talk up, and I'll personally see to your banning from these forums.
| Quote: |
8. The result of the war was the reason to go to war.
|
The result of this war is that the Iraqi people are free from Saddam, who is now in custody, and that no weapons of mass destruction have been found. That is not the same thing as a reason. Read the definitions again.
| Quote: |
If it was not a fucking reason why did he mention it so many times?
|
Are you forgetting that he said that the Iraqi people can see the text in Iraq? He mentions the repercussion of their war being the freedom of the Iraqi people. That is not a reason.
| Quote: |
If it was not a reason why is so much energy focused on it?
|
You're just being stupid again, right? Did you even see the pictures of Iraq after the Shock and Awe campaign? Can you imagine the turmoil the United States would be in if they just left Iraq the way it was?
| Quote: |
Ya, jackass. He was not elected. He was a successor. now go die.
|
Go look up the definition of consensus. Oh, you're still wrong.
| Quote: |
10. I am totally correct about the constitution. If Crimson wanted to ban you she could. If you were babbling outside a store the owner can force you to leave. a private citizen can stop another private citizens free speech. The government cannot.
|
Your government does not have the "right" to impress the constitution, or the rights and freedoms of your constitution on people that are not American citizens. If it does, please, point it out to me.
| Quote: |
Have you ever even talked to American soldier, do me a favor...never talk on their behalf again.
|
I've talked to Kirby on a regular basis. From what I gather with him, he doesn't agree with this war. That's all I need to know. I for one, support the troops who are risking their lives for their country. I do not support the man sending them away illegally. This is something you seem to have confused.
| Quote: |
12. No Bush is not a terrorist. Saddam is a terrorist. Osama is a terrorist. You are a jackass for even attempting to compare them.
|
I think Viper said it best, but I'll add to it:
"What would you call someone who unlawfully goes into someone else's country and blows stuff up?"
| Quote: |
13. the means...congress voted. We kept our own sovereignty and Iraq is free. The UN isn't complaining only jackasses like you. I don't see where I am wrong.
|
Iraq lost its sovreignty when Saddam was captured. That in itself is a violation of Resolution 1441. I don't understand where you're supposed to be going with this point.
| Quote: |
14. Where does it say we cannot start up the cease-fire?
|
I have a better question: Where does it say you CAN start up the cease-fire. Seems to me that charter says you can't, though.
| Quote: |
5. I don't watch CNN.
|
Good. Now stop watching FOXnews. That's far worse.
| Quote: |
I listen to people that have actually been to Iraq.
|
I listen to the people making the decisions. I also listen to the law.
| Quote: |
The people who have suffered. The people are happy. The Iraqis that are very Happy about this.
|
WARNING: MORALITY VERSUS LEGALITY CONFLICT
Guess what champ, you can't always legally do what you think is right.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #106134] |
Wed, 04 August 2004 16:25 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
1. Where has the UN come out and Said the Iraq war was illegal.
|
To my knowledge, the UN has never come out front and said "The US-led war in Iraq is illegal". That does NOT make the act legal. No one sane person in this world would say that it is legal because no one has said anything about it. That's like saying "it's only illegal if you're caught".
I have, repreatedly mind you, proven that this war is illegal in terms of the Charter and resolutions. You, as usual, have skipped over all that information because you're too damn arrogant to see facts for what they are.
| Quote: |
2. A result of the war was an incentive for going to war.
|
Do you even know what "incentive" means?
in·cen·tive
n.
Something, such as the fear of punishment or the expectation of reward, that induces action or motivates effort.
That sentence is flawed. And you're still wrong.
| Quote: |
Disarming Iraq is also a result. Liberating the Iraqi people, disarming Saddam, and getting rid of Saddam are all reasons and results.
|
They are all results. Only the WMD is a reason. This was proven already. Stop arguing in a circle.
| Quote: |
3. The UN was not dealing with it.
|
Don't you understand? Just because you believe the UN is not dealing with it, (even though the UNMOVIC is dealing with the situation of disarmiment) that does NOT give the United States the right to invade and institute an illegal coup d'etat.
| Quote: |
The only responsible thing was to get rid of Saddam. Now Saddam is no longer and it will be better because of it.
|
No one has doubted this. Stop bringing it up. It's still not justification for breaking international law.
| Quote: |
4. You still cannot prove WMD do not exist, so stop making the claim.
|
You can't prove they DO exist. Stop pertaining to that claim.
| Quote: |
5. They did not come to a conclusion. They never said it was illegal, they never said it was legal. We went with what we wanted to do. They haven't said anything so it is still legal.
|
"Ok guys! We've just robbed a bank and they don't know we did it! It's still legal because they haven't said 'JAVIX U CANAE ROB BANQ ITZ ELEGAL.'"
lol, that logic is so messed up, I don't even need to comment on it.
| Quote: |
6. America can do what it wants when it involves the safety of its peoples. As I have said before We did not need a permission slip to defend ourselves.
|
As the law says, you cannot attack someone pre-emptively. You can't do it here in Canada, and you can't do it with the United Nations. It's a stupid law, I agree, but it is still the LAW.
If I assault someone who threatens my family when he has not touched me at all, "I" get charged. And I would fully support that charge. I know I did the right thing, and I would fully accept the responsability for breaking the law to do it. I would also do it again. It is STILL illegal, though.
| Quote: |
7. Vigilante justice is not illegal.
|
Folks, THIS is the voice of your future American voter. Look upon it, and be ashamed.
| Quote: |
If you defend yourself that is vigilante Justice.
|
If you pre-emptively defend yourself, that is vigilante justice, and it is illegal. The law says (at least in Canada) you may defend yourself if you are assualted first.
| Quote: |
If you stop a robbery that is vigilante justice.
|
If the robbers have not touched you, then you are in the wrong as much as they are according to the law.
| Quote: |
If you stop somebody like Saddam from doing the things he is doing you re not doing anything illegal.
|
You're not the police. It's still illegal. Whoops!
| Quote: |
8. Those pictures were of government buildings. I have seen plenty of pictures from Iraq. I have 3 Cd's with over 5000 pictures and 40 something videos taken by soldiers inside of Iraq.
|
I'm going to pertain to the photos that Michael Moore got for F911 (which, unless you can prove otherwise, are genuine) that show Iraqi civilians crushed, burned, and homeless.
| Quote: |
9. A consensus is just a general agreement. No where in that link you provided says the people of Germany democratically elected Hitler. He was put into the position by the administration of that time. As would an American Vice-President of something happens to the President.
|
So he was elected into office by the representitive administrative government at the time. But he was still elected. That sounds democratic to me.
| Quote: |
10. We have the right to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world.
|
Any American patriots, I suggest you take a look at what your youth believe they can do with the world. Please show me in your constitution where it says you can do that.
| Quote: |
We have the right to express our opinions.
|
You have the right only to do that in America. You don't have that right in places that don't allow that freedom.
| Quote: |
We have the right to take action.
|
Only if the Security Council says you can. Remember, you signed the contract.
| Quote: |
We have the right to defend people from those who oppress them.
|
No, you do not. Show me where it says you are allowed to in your constitution.
| Quote: |
11.Who is Kirby and what does he do?
|
Kirby is a veteran from the Gulf War.
| Quote: |
12. Bush is in no way a terrorist. Did you forget who the real terrorists are?
|
No one has forgotten who the real terrorists are. They are just being informed of another one. "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." THAT is terrorism. What Bush did was unlawful, therefore he is a TERRORIST. He is a terrorist fighting for what you believe to be good, just as the terrorists that Usama hired believed (likely) that what HE was doing was good.
I don't think you'd hear any of the Al-Qaeda calling their leader a terrorist, so I don't expect you to admit that your leader is one.
| Quote: |
We never at one point took over Iraq.
|
LOL. I mean. WOW. I'm speechless. In fact, I'm going to make that bigtext for everyone to see.
Here's a newsflash. THE COALITION OCCUPIED IRAQ. THEY ALSO SET UP A REPRESENTITIVE GOVERNMENT.
| Quote: |
14. It is a general rule of cease fires. If you sign a cease-fire and the other side breaks it the cease-fire can be called off. We however did not do that.
|
Except you didn't MAKE the cease fire. The UN did. They are the only ones who can call it off. Not Congress or your president.
| Quote: |
15. Canada doesn't get FOX news, so how would you know how bad it is? Or do you pay extra for it?
|
We've had FOXnews for a while. At least, in my region.
Now, I have a question for you:
Why are you still arguing when you said you weren't going to? TWICE?
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How Bush will steal the 2004 Election... [message #106201] |
Thu, 05 August 2004 01:24 |
 |
Pak
Messages: 19
Registered: February 2003
Location: Vancouver B.C. Canada
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
GO BUSH GO
Chairman and CEO of Pak Incorporated.
Member of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Member of the Liberal Party of British Columbia.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 11 15:35:44 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01529 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
