Old 20th November 2003, 00:44   #81
DrKillPatient
Member
 
DrKillPatient's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 84
Hehe, I'm tempted to post something insidious and blame it on Americana but I refrain.

Fuck international law. All this new concern for international law can be credited to do-nothing double-speaking UN delegates. The only thing that matters to me is policy.

As for corruption Bush will pay the political price.
Quote:
The original Marshall Plan was a colossal boondoggle that only hampered European recovery from World War II
Graft is just business as usual everywhere you go. That does not mean profit was at the root of the war.
DrKillPatient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2003, 05:25   #82
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by DrKillPatient
Fuck international law. All this new concern for international law can be credited to do-nothing double-speaking UN delegates. The only thing that matters to me is policy.
Concern for international law is nothing new, and international law is not bullshit! this is one of the major reasons of my anger on Washigton, and many americans. My only comfort is that Americans are going to continue to pay the price of their ignorance with their lives.

The UN is a well respected unity allmost anywhere, except for among Bandits and offcourse the United States.

the UN, and the international diplomatic scene might not be as effective, as americans war mongering and unilateratism, but it's a better alternative by far.

Imagine what would happen if China, Russia, India or Pakistan, started following the same course.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2003, 09:04   #83
marvinbarcelona
Major Dude
 
marvinbarcelona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: m/cr, UK
Posts: 1,143
The US loves the UN....when the UN agrees with it, the US loves international law...when it agrees with it.

"Fuck international law. All this new concern for international law can be credited to do-nothing double-speaking UN delegates."

Couldn't we, for agruements sake, say that this is the attitute that those who flew the planes into the Twin Towers said...."Fuck international law"

America, you can't hide behind international law one moment and then dismiss it when it suits you. You have law or you don't.

It's been said that I could start an arguement in an empty room.....I see no reason to disbelieve this.
marvinbarcelona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2003, 09:27   #84
NJK
The Frisian Spamfighter
 
NJK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: a real Frisian hometown
Posts: 14,926
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
. My only comfort is that Americans are going to continue to pay the price of their ignorance with their lives.
sorry ertmann - but this is way out of line.

every human live lost due to some stupid leaders ignorance is no comfort to anybody.

every soldier dying in irak is a human that has family at home, those people loose a loved one.

there is no comfort in loosing people you love

I do think that you need to make a new statement about this.

Each Thursday a new show on Celtica Radio with Darkwave music.
**************************************************************************

WINAMPSHOUTCAST
NJK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2003, 15:01   #85
DrKillPatient
Member
 
DrKillPatient's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 84
Quote:
Couldn't we, for agruements sake, say that this is the attitute that those who flew the planes into the Twin Towers said...."Fuck international law"
Get real. They were religious fanatics. Ummm, I'm willing to bet they broke more laws than just international ones. I'm sure there respective countries have laws against murder.

Legal and illegal do not always see eye to eye with right and wrong. International laws only get written if the writer feels it impowers his nation.(or union) Furthermore every nation on the planet has blatantly broken some international code. In the end the only thing that matters is policy and consequence.
Quote:
America, you can't hide behind international law one moment and then dismiss it when it suits you
It's not just Americans that do it. It's politiking at it's worst and many are guilty of it.

Last edited by DrKillPatient; 20th November 2003 at 15:26.
DrKillPatient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2003, 01:23   #86
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by spaceplay
sorry ertmann - but this is way out of line.

every human live lost due to some stupid leaders ignorance is no comfort to anybody.

every soldier dying in irak is a human that has family at home, those people loose a loved one.

there is no comfort in loosing people you love

I do think that you need to make a new statement about this.
Why?

Americas army is a profesional one (as far as i know, if im wrong id be happy to take that statement back), every american soldier in Iraq has chosen to be there themselves...

how many americans soldiers have died thus far? 100? 200? well how about the estimated 21700 - 51000 iraqis, of which 7800 - 9100 are civilians?

boston phoenix

No, i dont have one bit of compasion for the american soldiers and their families, if youre going to hate me for that, then be my guest...
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2003, 05:11   #87
NJK
The Frisian Spamfighter
 
NJK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: a real Frisian hometown
Posts: 14,926
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ertmann|CPH

how many americans soldiers have died thus far? 100? 200? well how about the estimated 21700 - 51000 iraqis, of which 7800 - 9100 are civilians?

Like I said every live lost due to some stupid leader is never any comfort to the ones left behind.


Quote:
No, i dont have one bit of compasion for the american soldiers and their families, if youre going to hate me for that, then be my guest...
sorry you feel this way - think you look at it from one side only
do you really hate americans this much??
I know the soldiers take the chance of getting killed it's part of the job but that doesn't make it anything better for the ones left behind.

my guess is that you are not that old yet ( somewere between 16 and 20?) would be nice to see how you think about in a few years

btw I don't hate people for making a personal statement-I don't agree with everything you said.

Each Thursday a new show on Celtica Radio with Darkwave music.
**************************************************************************

WINAMPSHOUTCAST
NJK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2003, 08:06   #88
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Im 23, active member of a political party; Det Radikale Venstre. Im taking a Bachelor in International Buisness administration and sociology (and doing quite well). And i consider myself fairly mature when it comes to politics.

I dont hate americans per se, I do have a few american friends, but i do think the vast majority of americans a terribly ignorant. And it does piss me off - that the United States are making the world around me a less safe place to be.

Last edited by ertmann|CPH; 21st November 2003 at 10:29.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2003, 14:15   #89
NJK
The Frisian Spamfighter
 
NJK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: a real Frisian hometown
Posts: 14,926
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
Im 23, active member of a political party; Det Radikale Venstre.
sorry i got your age wrong

this party is left winged - can't speak your language but it's not that difficult to see what it's political course is.

like i said every live lost is no comfort to anybody - including the iraqis or for that matter every life lost in Turkey at this moment with all the bomb going off.

I also think the US has no business in Iraq at all-they should have stayed out of the country.Were do they draw the line ?????

say denmark won't agree to something in the UN and the USA comes walking in to take over the country because they don't agree with the goverment of Denmark!

Each Thursday a new show on Celtica Radio with Darkwave music.
**************************************************************************

WINAMPSHOUTCAST
NJK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2003, 23:04   #90
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by spaceplay
this party is left winged - can't speak your language but it's not that difficult to see what it's political course is.
The party’s name ‘Det Radikale Venstre’ has never failed – internationally – to create confusion about the party's political platform. However, the party is neither extremist nor terrorist. The word ‘radikal’ comes from the Latin radic or radix, meaning ‘root’, and was originally defined as ‘reformist’, particularly in social, military, and constitutional matters. Therefore the direct translation would be ‘the Liberal Reformist Party’. However, since the party throughout its existence has based its political platform on social-liberal ideas, ‘the Social-Liberal Party’ is a more accurate name.

Matter of definition really, in denmark its pretty much bang in the centre of the political spectre, while in the US it would probably be considered extremely left wing
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2003, 02:44   #91
PGHammer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4
No WMD present *so far*, however...

SO far, they have found no WMD in Iraq; however, it has *already been admitted* by members of Saddam's regime that Iraq was indeed *trying* to obtain WMD, either by creating a native program or obtaining already-built WMD via third parties (particularly North Korea). For this reason alone, even if no WMD is found in Iraq, Saddam had to go.

For those of you saying that Saddam was bluffing, how would the United Nations (let alone the United States) know that without inspectors in the country (which Saddam had just ejected)?

Further, while (from an *American* viewpoint) there were other reasons to give Saddam the heave-ho (his treatment of his own people would easily have been enough), the problem (at the time) was selling the idea of getting rid of him to the members of the United Nations Security Council.

In addition to the United States and Great Britain, there was also:

1. Russia. An ogliarchy disguised as a democracy. Their big fear would be that a UN-sponsored/backed war to kick out Saddam would set a precedent. (Further, Russia had pretty much become Iraq's largest trading partner, especially in terms of military technology, so Russia had a *business interest* in keeping Saddam around.)

2. France. Saddam's #2 weaponry salesman (behind Russia). France had also lost a great deal of face on the world stage (mainly to the seeming benefit of the United States). While France is also a member of NATO and the EU, it has a *very independent* foreign policy with a streak of inexplicability.

3. The People's Republic of China (PRC). It was more worried about a precedent being set than Russia, because a likely future target for a future action based on this precedent would be none other than North Korea. (It may yet happen.) It also does not want to be seen as becoming any sort of *vassal* of the United States.

As it turned out, the idea of punishing Saddam for violating the terms of the cease-fire at the end of Desert Storm (in short, actually *enforcing* the terms of that cease-fire) was a dead-letter in the United Nations due ot the economic and foreign-policy interests of other major countries.

And because the United Nations was basically paralyzed, it fell to the United States, Great Britain, and their allies to enforce the terms of the particular United Nations' resolutions (since the UN as a body could not do so).

A treaty without teeth is a worthless treaty (as the Treaty of Versailles amply demonstrated).

Would you rather the United Nations become a useless body?
PGHammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2003, 03:09   #92
PGHammer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally posted by marvinbarcelona
Sorry, but getting rid of a head of state because you don't like him is illegal...utterly ilegal.

Regarding your news source; I'm always dubious when a site doesn't say anything about it's aims or stand point. However, a brief look through it's news items reveals that the site may not be exactly unbiased, I mean, the article you mentioned was written by the editor in chief of The American Enterprise magazine and holder of the J.B. Fuqua chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

But yes, the Iraqi's are so happy the US & UK military are there they are just rushing out and greeting them with flowers....but they are not, are they. You could say that a couple of bombs, a few attacks on the US military is the result of a few die hards, but this is going on an awful long time. Maybe, just maybe, the Iraqi people don't want to have their country occupied. My be they know that when Iraq is nice and quiet, the US corporations will arrive and rape the country of everything of any value.

Are the Iraqi people glad Saddam is gone? Of course they are, it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise, but the ends does not justify the means.
Then what means would you have suggested for getting rid of him?

Assassinating him was also illegal (per the post-Church Commission Assassination Act, which bars the United States and its government officials from killing the head of a foreign government). Tossing him out of power (while detestable as a means) was *legal* (not only under the laws of the United States, but even under terms of the Cease-Fire Protocols which ended Operation Desert Storm which Iraq violated).

Why the occupation is still going on: There are those within (and outside of) Iraq with a vested interest in keeping the United States and its allies *tied down* in Iraq, mostly because of of events going on elsewhere. By and large, they are *nihilists/anarchists* (they don't want peace anywhere, and especially not in the Middle East). Within the country, they are largely Baath Party loyalists (remember, they were the group in power, and no dictatorship surrenders power willingly); outside the country, you have groups such as al-Queda, the PFLP-GC (which Saddam largely bankrolled), as well as some so-called *anti-US* groups that seek to attack anything having to do with what they see as the lone global superpower (which hasn't stopped some of them from trying to bloody the British, as the Istanbul bombings demonstrate). However, you also largely *admit* that by and large, the common Iraqi is not only much better off, but is in no hurry for the United States or Great Britain to leave! Further, the United States (as a nation) tends to leave a country in much better shape than it was when we invaded it.
PGHammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2003, 03:40   #93
PGHammer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4
American Imperialism? *Impossible*!

Quote:
Originally posted by marvinbarcelona
DrKillPatient : This may come as shock to some Americans, but Europe was full off sovereign nations before anyone knew the American continent existed, might try remembering that.

The US certainly will not support any empires...unless it is their own, of course, and yes your record does speak for its self; the US has an appalling record over-throwing democratically elected goverments in Central & South America and supporting some of the most horrendous dictators known.

Saddam certainly did use WMD on his own people, no one doubts that, but who sold them to him, knowing what he would do with them? Invite inspectors in to stop the war? Your media has probably buried this item, but Saddam offered to hold democratic elections (I know, I know) and allow US Military weapons inspectors in to look for WMDs...Bush refused the offer, didn't even think about....Bush wanted his war.

The mobile lab: even your own goverment has admitted it was no such thing. Casteroil factories???? Yeah, anyone with casteroil is obviously making WMDs.

The US goverment has had to cancel all the contracts for Haliburton to re-build Iraq becuase they were closed bids, ie, no one else was allowed to bid......Cheney has long years of connections with this company. The US is trying to sell goverment companys to the highest bidder....this is utterly illegal in every sense of the word, but your media might not be telling you about this.

Now, heres the bottom line : this war was done for profit, power and to get Dubbya re-elected, nothing else. No, I am not paranoid about US politics, I subject British politics to the same scrutiny as I do US politics. The difference is I don't get vilified in my country for doing so. My country welcomes opposing views. I may face counter arguements and even heated debate, but I don't get the FBI kicking my door in when I express these views.

You are niave if you think the US goverment and the US rich are not as corrupt and viciouse as the rest of the worlds. The rich and powerful in the US don't give a monkeys toss about you or your family, they will use you to grab more money and power...just like the rich and powerful in my country...difference is, I know what they're up to and you don't.
AN American *empire*? How many *empires* have nations *ask* to join it?

Texas and California were *sovereign nations* that *asked* to join the United States (in the case of Texas, that sparked the Mexican-American War against a *real* military dictator, Santa Ana, who we captured in the Battle of Juarez...and promptly sent back to Mexico so he could be tried by the Mexicans).

When Quebec nearly seceded from Canada a few years back, a majority of the English-speaking Canadian provinces sent a delegation to Washington asking to become part of the United States should Quebec secede.

*Yes*, we occupied Germany (and Japan) after World War II. Both Germany *and* Japan are in much better shape than they were at any time before the war.

We occupied the Philippines after the Spanish-American War (and again after World War II); in no case did we *hold on* to them. (The same applies to Vanatu.)

We also occupied Puerto Rico (then a Spanish imperial holding) after the Spanish-American War; we stayed because we were *asked* to. Puerto Rico could have ended it several times; they *chose* to remain a territory (with their own Governor and delegates to Congress; they also have the second-greatest percentage of citizens in the Armed Forces of any American state or territory).

Is the United States perfect? No. We have made our share of mistakes (some of them were major dillies). However, democracy in the United States has been in operation for the last two hundred-plus years *continuously*; this can be said of no other form of government in *any* other country on Earth (and yes, that *includes* Great Britain).

People from other countries emigrate to the United States because the United States as a country is time-tested, battle-hardened, and *proven to succeed*. While there are national governments that are ambivalent toward (or plain and simply *hate*) the United States and what it stands for, this is by and large not true of even a majority of the citizens of those countries (not even the PRC, Russia, or Syria!).

The United States isn't perfect; far from it. *However*, we still have more *legal* immigrants from more countries than any other country.
PGHammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2003, 03:56   #94
WomanOfHeart
Major Dudette
 
WomanOfHeart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Somewhere no one can find me...in my own head.
Posts: 978
Just an FYI, people who move from one country to another immigrate. People who move from one part of a country to another part of the same country emigrate.

WomanOfHeart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2003, 14:26   #95
Bazman63
Major Dude
 
Bazman63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West London
Posts: 868
Moving AWAY permanently from any where is to emigrate.
Comming To permanently settle anywhere is to immigrate.
To do neither premantly is to migrate.
Hence we welcome immigrants, wave goodbye to emigrants and exploit migrants.
Ps. The war was started on the basis of the existance of WMD, not to "free" anyone. The US & UK both knew this was a lie. Ergo; the war is an illegal act, no matter what beneficial side effects may have occurred. Can anyone tell me why the allies are buying their fuel from Dick Cheney's oil company when they can get it cheaper from the Iraqi's and truly benfit the Iraqi people at the same time?

'In this country, it takes all the running you can do to stay in one place.'"
Bazman63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2003, 17:50   #96
marvinbarcelona
Major Dude
 
marvinbarcelona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: m/cr, UK
Posts: 1,143
PGHammer, removing another head of state is illegal under International Law. If two countries are at war, then, obviously the the winner can remove the head of state....this of course is based on the theory that the war itself was legal, which in the case of Iraq is in serious dispute.

The call those fighting the occupation of Iraq as terrorists or members of the old reigme is simply not good enough. The facts that are coming out of, supplied by US goverment agencies and the US military indicates that those fighting the occuptaion are not Saddam loyalists. I'm sorry if this dosen't fit with your picture of the world, but there you go. I'd also add, that those fighting the occuptaion could also be called patriots. Depends whose country is being occupied, dosen't it.

The average Iraqi has said no such thing about wanting the US & UK out. If this were true, why aren't they in the streets helping the soldiers? Why aren't they turning in those opposed to the occupation? See, your vision of whats happening, dosen't have a basis in fact. I'm not saying I know everything, but I base my opinions on the evidence gained from different sources, not those which fit my world view.

Regarding an American Empire. Well, the evidence points to the US being an empire. You may be thinking that because the US dosen't physically occupy many countries that this means it dosen't have an empire. This is simply an incorrect understanding of an empire, especially one in today's world.

Even empires hundreds of years ago didn't need to physically occupy countries, just the threat of occupation can keep a country under your control and there fore subject to empire and thats not to mention keeping countries economically dependant, which is also a form of empire, therefore, it is an empire. The fact that many countries feel powerless to anything against the US mconfirms it is an empire. It may not call itself such, but it dosen't mean it isn't.

Democracy? hhhhmmmmm, the US, such a big support of democracy....as long as that democracy votes in the goverment the US approves of. If it dosen't, then the US will invade or finance a coup. Not very democractic.

However, democracy in the United States has been in operation for the last two hundred-plus years *continuously*; this can be said of no other form of government in *any* other country on Earth (and yes, that *includes* Great Britain).

You sure you don't want to look at this point again? No? I will ask you to tell me when black people legally had the right to vote and when they were actually permitted to vote by the rest of the population. Democracy has not been in operation in the US for 200 years, only for 40 years. The UK has had univerals sufferage since about 1900. More or less, not exactly sure of the date, but certainly longer than the US.

You might want to take those rose-tinted glasses off.

It's been said that I could start an arguement in an empty room.....I see no reason to disbelieve this.
marvinbarcelona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2003, 06:15   #97
SoundwaveDECPT
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1
I would like to add a couple things here;

Some one said "Rome wasent built in a day"
No Rome was built in many many romen calender years HOWEVER it was torn to peices in a matter of months and lost to the sands of time. I really hope the US does not plan on placing another Rome over there.

Secondly, what can you do about your gouverment? Well there has been many examples in the past, you can use the court system to have recalls and to force changes, you can contact the UN to enter the situation (like what happened in Iraq) or you can simply revolt.

I find it funny how many say there is nothing you can do to change your gouverment, just try telling that to the Iraqi people now. Or better yet, the Russian people, or the French people, or perhaps the English, or hey even us Canadians, we polity asked for our independence back in '83 and it was given to us by our ruling gouverment.

You are only limited by what you are willing to pay for your freedom and democracy, ask not what your gouverment can do for you, but ask what your gouverment has done to you.

Last edited by SoundwaveDECPT; 24th November 2003 at 06:31.
SoundwaveDECPT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2003, 06:49   #98
Bazman63
Major Dude
 
Bazman63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West London
Posts: 868
The US has just asked the UN to flex it's legal muscle with regard to Iran's nuclear program. It seems the UN is suddenly the legitmate, legal body to deal with this sort of issue.

'In this country, it takes all the running you can do to stay in one place.'"
Bazman63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2003, 11:45   #99
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
yeah, that's an interresting issue, The EU want's to reward the new reform friendly rulership of Iran, US want's to punish it. Hopefully the EU can flex some muscle on this one.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump