Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Ring of Evil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ring of Evil [message #138997] |
Thu, 17 February 2005 22:12   |
 |
IRON FART
Messages: 1989
Registered: September 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
If Iraq fucks with us we fuck with them
|
Should read:
| Quote: |
If Iraq fucks with us we fuck with them. If Iraq does not fuck with us we fuck with them.
|
Nodbugger, you'll grow up to be a fine redneck. Go play a banjo.
| Quote: |
Quote from IRC
<[Digital]> get man_fucking_a_car.mpg
<[Digital]> ah fuck wrong window
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ring of Evil [message #139011] |
Thu, 17 February 2005 23:59 |
|
IRON FART
Messages: 1989
Registered: September 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Assuming I'm a kid....you are an idiot.
|
The only thing i'm assuming is that you have yet to grow up.
| Quote: |
Stereotypical Bigotry, thats right kids! its not just limited to Conservatives!
|
No shit. It would be bigotry to say that it was.
| Quote: |
Quote from IRC
<[Digital]> get man_fucking_a_car.mpg
<[Digital]> ah fuck wrong window
|
[Updated on: Fri, 18 February 2005 00:03] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Ring of Evil [message #139014] |
Fri, 18 February 2005 00:12 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller |
| Quote: |
You violated international law.
|
And? Your point is? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you telling us that we need to follow a law that other nations won't follow themselves? Or are you telling us that violating "law" that isn't even a law to begin with, has any relevance to the United States attacking Iraq?
How about you prove why we should care, instead of harping on the same point that you're unable to back up... Better yet, find a real argument because no one here besides warranto is taking your "legal" argument seriously, sans Nodbugger but we all know he isn't the shiniest penny of the bunch.
And don't tell me to stop whining while you continue to whine about "international law" being broken, you contradictive man.
|
It doesn't matter if no one else follows the law, the law is still there. The ineffectiveness of it posses no relvance to it being there, and whether or not it is broken.
No one cares if you care or not. It poses no relevance to the issue of a law being broken, or not. The facts are all that are important, not personal feelings. If personal feelings dictated the legal system we would be in a lot of trouble because someone could legally act a way simply because they "felt like it".
Telling someone to whine, then whineing yourself has no bearing on the contradiction of anything. He didn't provide an arguement the disregards a previous statement.
Edit: I still don't quite get what you infer by the arguement not being taken seriously without nodbugger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ring of Evil [message #139023] |
Fri, 18 February 2005 02:19 |
 |
Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| Quote: |
It doesn't matter if no one else follows the law, the law is still there. The ineffectiveness of it posses no relvance to it being there, and whether or not it is broken.
|
So what your argument now boils down to is that even if the law is useless, unable to be enforced, and not something you have to follow... Why is it a law, and why are you harping about it?
Again, your argument has no substance to it. If you don't enforce a law and make it useful, it won't be credible. It's the same logic behind copyright infringement.
And don't say "no one cares" because you obviously do. Our care, or lack thereof, of the "international law" you so diligently subscribe to shows that you're upset that we refuse to abide by something that can't be enforced. If the UN calls it illegal, then they'll do something about it. But until then I kindly invite both you and Java to shut the fuck up about it and actually argue a real point.
What we're trying to say is that if a law can't be enforced, it wouldn't matter anyway because there'd be no reason to have the law to begin with... EVEN IF we were fucking held to this "international law" you keep bitching about. But since we obviously aren't, you telling us about that is like SuperFlyingFungalInfection telling us that Germany can imprison Donald Rumsfeld for war crimes.
Does it matter if they can? Yes, and only if he goes to Germany. Does it matter if something "can" be done about the supposed violation of "international law"? Yes, and only if the nations that created it plan to do something about it. Otherwise it's invalid and holds no ground.
And yes, he contradicted himself. He tells someone not to whine, but whines anyway. That is a contradiction.
|
|
|
|
| Ring of Evil [message #139033] |
Fri, 18 February 2005 05:16 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller |
And? Your point is? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you telling us that we need to follow a law that other nations won't follow themselves?
|
It's pretty obvious you don't understand. I am saying that the law is the law whether it is enforced or not. Those other nations are just as guilty as you are of violating international law and they should be punished.
So I've got a question for you, why isn't America pressing for legal action to be taken against the French, German, and Russian governments then? Using your logic, they didn't even break the law anyway, because you're still pertaining to this:
| Quote: |
Or are you telling us that violating "law" that isn't even a law to begin with, has any relevance to the United States attacking Iraq?
|
I'm not going to waste my time acquiring the links and proofs I provided for you in another thread. Seeing how you obviously didn't even read them, why should I cater to your laziness?
| Quote: |
How about you prove why we should care,
|
Because it is a hypocrisy to defend the concept of justice so sternly while knowingly creating an injustic; you know, breaking a law yourself?
| Quote: |
instead of harping on the same point that you're unable to back up...
|
You mean that you can't refute, because you haven't. In fact, in just about every instance, you've undergone an otherwise hilarious transition of defending your legal right through the U.N. resolutions to attacking the validity of your own proofs upon finding out that your original proofs were flawed.
I suggest you stop grasping at straws.
| Quote: |
sans Nodbugger but we all know he isn't the shiniest penny of the bunch.
|
I agree.
| Quote: |
And don't tell me to stop whining while you continue to whine about "international law" being broken, you contradictive man.
|
I didn't come into the thread out of the blue and scream ILGAL!!!111111 I replied to the idiocy of another person, one thing lead to another and we are back at the forefront of this same argument. So I didn't whine. 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ring of Evil [message #139088] |
Fri, 18 February 2005 10:37 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
First of all, you say that everyone should be punished who was involved in the Oil For Palaces scandal... and yet the US should also be punished for going to war with Iraq. NEVERMIND that IF France, Germany, Russia, and others were NOT being bribed by Saddam, they wouldn't have opposed the military action in the first place and would have, in fact, authorized the war whole-heartedly.
Furthermore, for a contract to be contested, there needs to be a court of law that can make the determination of whether or not the contract was breached. Considering there was NO international court when the UN Charter was adopted, how can you even call the Charter a legally-binding contract? Furthermore, considering the US doesn't and hasn't agreed to recognize the "new" International Criminal Court, how can they in turn be held in violations of the laws that said court is supposed to uphold?
Basically, you spout the words "International Law" while never providing evidence of some "Planet Earth Statutes" or any such documentation of the existence of International Laws.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Ring of Evil [message #139106] |
Fri, 18 February 2005 11:40 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller |
| Quote: |
It doesn't matter if no one else follows the law, the law is still there. The ineffectiveness of it posses no relvance to it being there, and whether or not it is broken.
|
So what your argument now boils down to is that even if the law is useless, unable to be enforced, and not something you have to follow... Why is it a law, and why are you harping about it?
Again, your argument has no substance to it. If you don't enforce a law and make it useful, it won't be credible. It's the same logic behind copyright infringement.
And don't say "no one cares" because you obviously do. Our care, or lack thereof, of the "international law" you so diligently subscribe to shows that you're upset that we refuse to abide by something that can't be enforced. If the UN calls it illegal, then they'll do something about it. But until then I kindly invite both you and Java to shut the fuck up about it and actually argue a real point.
What we're trying to say is that if a law can't be enforced, it wouldn't matter anyway because there'd be no reason to have the law to begin with... EVEN IF we were fucking held to this "international law" you keep bitching about. But since we obviously aren't, you telling us about that is like SuperFlyingFungalInfection telling us that Germany can imprison Donald Rumsfeld for war crimes.
Does it matter if they can? Yes, and only if he goes to Germany. Does it matter if something "can" be done about the supposed violation of "international law"? Yes, and only if the nations that created it plan to do something about it. Otherwise it's invalid and holds no ground.
And yes, he contradicted himself. He tells someone not to whine, but whines anyway. That is a contradiction.
|
The law may be uneforced. useless, whatever. It doesn't matter. The law IS STILL there. A law not willing to be enforced does not automatically invalidate it. In order for a law to be "no more", it must be recinded by the government body that brought it into existance.
Point in context: Supposedly In Oblong, Illinois, it's punishable by law to make love while hunting or fishing on your wedding day. I ca't vouce for the validity of this, but the point is the same. If this is done, the law has been broken. It may not be enfoced, but the law IS STILL there until the government removes it.
Nodbugger has it right. UN Laws = Jaywalking. But guess what? Jaywalking is still breaking the law even if it won't be enforced.
I AM NOT saying that America should/will/is going to be punished. All I am saying is that the law is there, and that law has been broken. That's it. That's where the point stops.
And no, a contradiction is expressing two opposing view points. NOT saying one thing is bad, then doing it yourself as there is no discrepancy with the facts (It's still "bad", regardless of who does it). That's called hypocrasy, not a contradicition.
|
|
|
|
| Ring of Evil [message #139114] |
Fri, 18 February 2005 12:19 |
 |
Kytten9
Messages: 332
Registered: October 2003
Location: Manchester, England
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Crimson |
NEVERMIND that IF France, Germany, Russia, and others were NOT being bribed by Saddam, they wouldn't have opposed the military action in the first place and would have, in fact, authorized the war whole-heartedly.
|
Here's an observation; France publically led the front on the US and UK not going into Iraq, they stated it was a crime against humanity and spouted all kinds of UN, EC and worldwide BS....Yet these "defenders of humanity" "protectors of what's right and wrong"...did anyone see them do A THING for the victims of the Asian Tsunami? erm NO...so much for their morals....Mind you, im not supprised, the French test THEIR NUCLEAR weapons out in that part of the worlds so why would they give a shit. [/offtopic rant]
Im not against the fact we went into Iraq....Saddam needed removing. Im against the fact that we are still in there. I myself (once having been in the British Military) have friends still over there and have had friends wounded while over there, it's not nice to turn on the T.V every morning thinking you may see a face you know that died before their time fighting for some big-eared moron's personal agenda (by that i mean Tony Blair).
You have a God given right to be stupid. Please do not abuse this right!
n00bstories renegade server mod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ring of Evil [message #139133] |
Fri, 18 February 2005 13:15 |
|
Kytten9
Messages: 332
Registered: October 2003
Location: Manchester, England
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| DaveGMM |
| Kytten9 |
Here's an observation; France publically led the front on the US and UK not going into Iraq, they stated it was a crime against humanity and spouted all kinds of UN, EC and worldwide BS....Yet these "defenders of humanity" "protectors of what's right and wrong"...did anyone see them do A THING for the victims of the Asian Tsunami? erm NO...so much for their morals....Mind you, im not supprised, the French test THEIR NUCLEAR weapons out in that part of the worlds so why would they give a shit. [/offtopic rant]
|
Here's another observation. You're totally fucking wrong.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=382202
| Quote: |
In an unusual step, the group's branches in France and Germany said they had 40 million and $27 million respectively
|
Yup. The French don't care about the Tsunami appeal. I'll drink to that... oh wait.
Get your facts right before you even think about going off on a misinformed rampage.
|
MSF is a French CHARITY,..... they are also an international charity (i know because i support them..one of many i do) ...their funds came from the people...not the government....all international charities have more or less re-directed funds now, since most of them reached their targets. The BRC for example reached £50mil a few weeks ago. I was refering to the government (sorry for not making that clear). I have never heard or seen any mention on the news, in the papers or anywhere else for that matter that the French government pledged anything more than condolences (in the first few days) ...bearing in mind Britain only pledged £15mil until the public out bid them in 24 hours flat.
My local newspaper commented on countries that had failed to offer much help for that incident...France was listed...considering they count themselves as a super power they surely should have been one of the first countries offering aid, but instead were guilt tripped into it. Lastly I have a friend from France (called Gylenne, who is in her 30's so hardly mis-informed about world affairs) and she even commented on "How disgusted" she was with her country for failing to do little or nothing for them...Should i tell her she is wrong.
My point was; France (the government again!) preached to both the US and UK, made their own citizens believe they were a better country then the US and UK for NOT going into Iraq, yet did less than either country to aid people in real need...but by all standards, I guess you think im wrong there too.
It's common knowledge the French test nuclear weapons in the south pacific, without world support, but since its classed as their territory I suppose they can do as they please.
You have a God given right to be stupid. Please do not abuse this right!
n00bstories renegade server mod.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 02 19:47:34 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01627 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
I guess you just owned yourself there.
