Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they?
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119563] |
Sun, 10 October 2004 20:13   |
 |
Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
As the victors it's our right to make money off the war. I personally think we should take their oil and annex the sections of Iraq with it for all the trouble that nation has caused us.
The difference with the bribery is that I only see you focus on the US, and how you can incriminate us. How about playing fair and focusing equally on the others responsible for this mess?
I don't care if it was the law or not. The problem with the "law" was that it was flawed. Generally, when laws are antiquated or not good, you'll try to get them changed. We did, if I remember correctly. It's hard to change the laws when the people who don't want it changed are the ones being bribed.
At that point it doesn't become law, it becomes a chokehold on doing what it is that you need to do in order to protect your nation.
As for consequences, the only consequences we should face are ones involving us pulling out of the UN and withdrawing all funding, along with removing our soldiers from every overseas location except for war spots including Afghanistan and Iraq.
Other than that, they should face the consequences for being an inept world body that only exists to serve itself, not humanity as a whole.
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119574] |
Sun, 10 October 2004 21:10 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
OK, so let me get this straight... we should let Saddam go, punish Russia, France, and Germany's leaders for being bribed... punish the US leaders as war criminals. Yes, I see that a much better solution. :rolleyes:
And what is this crap about unpaid dues? From the best of my knowledge, the USA is the largest funder of all the UN's humanitarian projects. If we were so "in debt" to the UN then why wouldn't they take the first opportunity to bring us to "justice"... and how can they bring us to "justice" if Bush refused to make us a part of the International Criminal Court in the Hague?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119583] |
Sun, 10 October 2004 22:16 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller |
As the victors it's our right to make money off the war. I personally think we should take their oil and annex the sections of Iraq with it for all the trouble that nation has caused us.
|
That wasn't what I was talking about.
| Quote: |
The difference with the bribery is that I only see you focus on the US, and how you can incriminate us. How about playing fair and focusing equally on the others responsible for this mess?
|
In all "fairness": France, Germany, and Russia didn't cause the deaths of hundreds of innocent people while leaving just as many homeless. Sure, that's what comes with conventional war nowadays, but it doesn't change the fact that innocent people died under your attacks. Read my post again chief: if they're in the wrong, they need to be punished as well.
| Quote: |
I don't care if it was the law or not. The problem with the "law" was that it was flawed. Generally, when laws are antiquated or not good, you'll try to get them changed. We did, if I remember correctly. It's hard to change the laws when the people who don't want it changed are the ones being bribed.
|
If this is what you (and possibly millions of Americans) believe, then why is it that you are still in the U.N.?
| Quote: |
OK, so let me get this straight... we should let Saddam go, punish Russia, France, and Germany's leaders for being bribed... punish the US leaders as war criminals. Yes, I see that a much better solution.
|
Stop being so one dimensional. Now understand this, because you and many others are having a seemingly difficult time comprehending: "NO BODY IS ABOVE THE LAW". Conservative or not, you're all (supposed) to be equal when it comes to the law. If you ask Bush if you go to his final debate on Wednesday, he will tell you the same thing. If you are going to punish Saddam the way you have done so by eviscerating him from his sovereignty, and go as far as to critize the French, Germans, and Russians for their illegal deals which you suspect are the reasons they would not support you, how in God's name can you possibly ignore the rampant hypocrisy of your own nation? If you can even fathom condemning any of those nations under a legal pretense without looking ever so closely at yourself, then maybe I was right all along: Maybe you are living in a bubble.
As for your dues, I've only looked for a few minutes, but:
| Quote: |
Jan. 2003. The United States, the world's richest nation, is currently the biggest single defaulter owing more than 800 million dollars to the world body.
|
http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/241
But yet, all these poorer nations can afford to pay their debts.
| Quote: |
and how can they bring us to "justice" if Bush refused to make us a part of the International Criminal Court in the Hague?
|
So wait a second here, are you trying to imply that you had no legal right to do dick all in the first Gulf War because the ICC wasn't even invented yet? How is it that the U.N. can beat on Saddam Hussein back then or enforce resolutions on him with legal pretense before, and AFTER the creation of the ICC but all of a sudden, you consider yourself absolved from it here and now? Sorry Crimson, not being part of the ICC doesn't absolve you from the obligations to the law when you signed the charter. It obviously didn't for Saddam. Nice try, though.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119654] |
Mon, 11 October 2004 11:29 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
The main point of that arguement seems to be that the US shouldn't have to pay because it has been paid many times over through other costs.
That's nice, it doesn't matter though. Unless an agreement had been made that those costs could be paid in lieu of the dues, then yes, that speech would make a compalling arguement. However, to my knowledge, no such agreement has been made. Therefore that speech is a pointless arguement.
| Quote: |
OK, so let me get this straight... we should let Saddam go, punish Russia, France, and Germany's leaders for being bribed... punish the US leaders as war criminals. Yes, I see that a much better solution.
|
Kind of like how the DC sniper had an indictment dismissed, simply because it did not reach the court in time? He was very much guilty, and should not have been able to get off. But the law is the law, regarless of who agrees with it or not. The Administrative law was not followed, therefore, despite the fact he was most likely guilty, the indictment was dismissed.
Link
The exact same thing applies here. If the law was not followed in the removal of Saddam, he could very well be let go. Of course, as I stated, if the UN so desired, he they could arrest him right away on other crimes.
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119756] |
Mon, 11 October 2004 16:56 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Apparently you didn't read the entire speech.
"They have all reached essentially the same conclusions, that we have spent about $19 billion on peacekeeping activities since 1992. Now, we have been credited with $1.8 billion of that against U.N. dues, so a precedent has already been made, that if we spend money on an authorized U.N. peacekeeping activity that those monies that we have spent there are in lieu of dues; that is, they could replace dues. They only did that, though, with $1.8 billion. There is about another $17 billion that is still out there that we have received no credit for."
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| The WMD and terrorist ties that didn't exist...or did they? [message #119806] |
Mon, 11 October 2004 21:28 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
No, I read that part. Only a portion has been credited for it, not all of it. Meaning that, yes, money paid towards the UN may be accredited could be in lieu of UN dues. The only thing is, is that it does not automatically mean EVERY due has some money attributed to it. Going again, towards what I said about an agreement being made.
This section of that paragraph explains it; important parts being bolded.
| Quote: |
that if we spend money on an authorized U.N. peacekeeping activity that those monies that we have spent there are in lieu of dues; that is, they could replace dues. They only did that, though, with $1.8 billion. There is about another $17 billion that is still out there that we have received no credit for."
|
Now, yes that also implies there is $17 billion not accounted for, but as it is, only a portion has been put towards UN dues. Something like this has the ability to continue in the future (expences being put towards dues), but unless an arrangement has been made, it doesn't HAVE to (of course, this won't prevent America from rightfully assuming it will).
In the case of a disagreement in that with America and the UN, there is always acourt to figure out the specifics.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Aug 19 14:24:18 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00967 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
