Planetarion Forums - ATTN: JonnyBGood

Nodrog · 28 Jan 2004, 01:59

The US could be thought to control the UN in every pragmatic sense that actually matters to anyone ever.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 01:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

spamming is the only way to respond

What, not smart enough to respond...or perhaps you know im right.. and have just given up.

LAMER>

Why do I need to respond to posts which basically say 'I'm factually inaccurate, but I'm going to make some stuff up anyway'

Nodrog · 28 Jan 2004, 02:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by G_frog

It is against international law.

No such thing exists.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The US could be thought to control the UN in every pragmatic sense that actually matters to anyone ever.

That's true of any of the permanant security council, though.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

No such thing exists.

The UN disagrees.

http://www.un.org/law/

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:01

It is not aggainst international law to protect yourself against threats. Your 100percent wrong about that. Your liberal junky mates have told you it is and OMG you believe it. What was the united states supposed to do with the french said we;re goign to vETO no matter what, ****ing retards.. Terrorist, are enemy combatents, which means they dont need to be given the same civil rights as a normal citien would.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

It is not aggainst international law to protect yourself against threats. Your 100percent wrong about that. Your liberal junky mates have told you it is and OMG you believe it. What was the united states supposed to do with the french said we;re goign to vETO no matter what, ****ing retards.. Terrorist, are enemy combatents, which means they dont need to be given the same civil rights as a normal citien would.

Iraq didn't pose any threat, though. Indeed, as a secular state, it was probably reducing the terrorist community.

Nodrog · 28 Jan 2004, 02:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The UN disagrees.

http://www.un.org/law/

A law without a means to enforce it isnt a law. Something isnt more an 'international law' because certain governments have said it was than 'dont wear red on tuesdays' is a local law because I declare it to be. Noone is going to listen to either of us if it goes against their self interest, and neither of us has the means to enforce our demands on those who refuse to comply.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

A law without a means to enforce it isnt a law. Something isnt more an 'international law' because certain governments have said it was than 'dont wear red on tuesdays' is a local law because I declare it to be. Noone is going to listen to either of us if it goes against their self interest, and neither of us has the means to enforce our demands on those who refuse to comply.

I think it's pretty clear that (apart from the intervention of the members of the SC) the UN has the power to enforce the law.

Nodrog · 28 Jan 2004, 02:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I think it's pretty clear that (apart from the intervention of the members of the SC) the UN has the power to enforce the law.

You just said that the US broke this 'international law' of yours. Who exactly is going to enforce it here?

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

You just said that the US broke this 'international law' of yours.

I'm pretty sure I didn't.

The UN is a bit of a paper tiger if you want to move against the SC.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:08

Iraq has always been a threat and woud have continued to be a threat.

Not just the the united states but to the whole free world.

And do you know why

Because of WMD? No(Although some have been found) Becuase of Terrorist connections? No(although some have be found).

BUt because Iraq was not a free land and was ruled by a barberic ruler who massacred his own people to serve his purpose. And because he was actively looking to hurt the united states and was actively breaking trading sanctions and stopping aid form getting to his people

Just beucase peopel are too stupid to relize that somethign needs to be gotten done, and they have to be given superficial reasons to support the war, doesnt mean the war itself is unjustified. I dont know how anyone can sit there and say the the world was better off with Saddam in power, and if you cant/dont say that, then just the **** up becasue you have nothing to say thats worth while

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:09

And MrL, being that you found the international law homepage, show me where it says attakcign a nation to protect yourslef is illegal...

Nodrog · 28 Jan 2004, 02:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I'm pretty sure I didn't..

oh it was giles, sorry

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The UN is a bit of a paper tiger if you want to move against the SC.

yeah as I said, international law doesnt exist.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:10

Well, ignoring that NO WMD's have been found, and that there have been NO terrorist connections found, a single tyrant is not a threat to world security.

If that was the motive, why hasn't the US moved against the Saudi's, who have PROVEN terrorist links (especially to Al-Qaeda), and have as bad a civil rights record?

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

And MrL, being that you found the international law homepage, show me where it says attakcign a nation to protect yourslef is illegal...

Why do people confuse me with giles?

He's a goddamned biologist.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:12

Leshy i didnt say that the United States SOLEY FUNDED the UN, and the United States, with Rooselvelts Thirteen points, did form the beggingines of the UN.

ANd no, i wouldnt have a problem with my governement putting a chip in me, as long as it didnt, hurt, and didnt cost a lot of money for them to do. this would stop murder, rape and all sorts of horrible things. Im all for it. Tell me where to sign that petition

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

yeah as I said, international law doesnt exist.

It exists in pretty much the same way as civil law, with one rule for the rich and one for the poor.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

ANd no, i wouldnt have a problem with my governement putting a chip in me, as long as it didnt, hurt, and didnt cost a lot of money for them to do. this would stop murder, rape and all sorts of horrible things. Im all for it. Tell me where to sign that petition

This is why you can't argue civil liberties with an authoritarian.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:17

Quote:

Well, ignoring that NO WMD's have been found, and that there have been NO terrorist connections found, a single tyrant is not a threat to world security

WMD's

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/janu...nish_wmd.shtml

Terrorist ties

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

G_frog · 28 Jan 2004, 02:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

there is a difference betweeen just taking latin and taking roman history.. additona.. any one can say they did something .. but did they really..

And.. Your wrong about just about everything you sasid

The Vast majority of funding for the United nations comes from the United States
BECAUSE OF THIS, THE UNITED STATES OWNS THE UN. Not really ofc, but because they control the money, they control everything.

ANd if you remember, the League of Nations was created, but failed because the United States refused to sign. Roosevelt brought up his thirteen-points and thats what started the UN. With out the blessing of the united states, The UN would have never existed.

He stipulated latin/classics. Do you know what 'classics' means? You've also rather undermined your own claim to authority. And for the record, yes MrL took classics.

I hate to break it to you, but the US state department disagrees with you.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24236.htm
http://www.un.int/usa/fact2.htm

The UN would not have existed without the blessing and cooperation of the US, the UK, france and Russia at least. Hence the permanent members business.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

WMD's

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/janu...nish_wmd.shtml

I don't see why first world war style chemical weapons that were given to Iraq by members of the current administration should count as WMDs, especially given they hadn't been touched for over a decade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Terrorist ties

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

http://www.channel4.com/news/home/z/...ace/index.html

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:20

a single tyrant, even if we let it stand just at that, is a threat, because it builds up

thats why the middle east is so messed up, thats why we are in afganistan/iraq to build have decent democratic states, only then willl the middle east imrpove.

I'd be the first inline to start going after iran next, that is if there own people dont revolt first..

G_frog · 28 Jan 2004, 02:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

WMD's

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/janu...nish_wmd.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3407853.stm

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

a single tyrant, even if we let it stand just at that, is a threat, because it builds up

I'm pretty sure the threat from Saddam hasn't changed in the couple of decades he's been in power.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:23

are you f'ing kidding me.. if thats the kind of subjective news you have over there, then no wonder you are agains the war.. how bout openg your eues

ANSWER THIS QUESTION

IS the world not-better with saddam ousted?

Deepflow · 28 Jan 2004, 02:23

liberties are more important than a few people getting hurt.

that sounds mean

ans deathstar dude... the world isnt a better place with iraq out of the way, its increased US hegemony, which is not in the interest of any country apart from itself. And has paved the way for increase in power of global corporations which have the US govt in their pocket anyway.

I dont really want the world to be any more controlled by unelected corporations who are purely in place for their own personal gain.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

are you f'ing kidding me.. if thats the kind of subjective news you have over there, then no wonder you are agains the war.. how bout openg your eues

ANSWER THIS QUESTION

IS the world not-better with saddam ousted?

Between Iraq and a Hard Place?

That's not news, that's satire. Although the facts are, well, facts.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:25

MrL, again u missed my point.

One terrant himself is not a problem, but it builds up. One terrant here, antoehr there, soon you have nothing but terrants. This is what happend in The middle east, now its f'd up and we are trying now to fix it, by bringing freedom into the region.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

IS the world not-better with saddam ousted?

As it stands, no it isn't. It's disturbed the situation in the middle east more than the Afghan invasion did, it's not replaced the government with anything meaningful (nor have they done in Afghanistan), it's laid the foundations of yet another fundamentalist government, it's decresed the power of the UN, it's distabilised relations between the US and central europe, it's (and so on for ever, it seems)

Deepflow · 28 Jan 2004, 02:27

TYRANT!

FOR ****S SAKE ITS SPELT TYRANT!

also... actually... i dont actually have any new points at this juncture, as its impossible to take any of yours seriously.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

MrL, again u missed my point.

One terrant himself is not a problem, but it builds up. One terrant here, antoehr there, soon you have nothing but terrants. This is what happend in The middle east, now its f'd up and we are trying now to fix it, by bringing freedom into the region.

Actually, what happened in the middle east was america trying to get its own way, and failing to look at the long term consequences.

Kind of like what's happening now.

G_frog · 28 Jan 2004, 02:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

a single tyrant, even if we let it stand just at that, is a threat, because it builds up

thats why the middle east is so messed up, thats why we are in afganistan/iraq to build have decent democratic states, only then willl the middle east imrpove.

I'd be the first inline to start going after iran next, that is if there own people dont revolt first..

I don't think saddam hussein could have been said to be building up his capacity to strike at us.

the middle east isn't messed up because of a few dictators lording it over everybody, that's a symptom not a cause.

i note you've shifted your argument in 10 minutes, when it took our respective governments months, so well done on that score.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:29

so, i suppose its better to let a few thousand people die by a ruthless dictator every year, as long as you dont piss lazy ass people off.

you guys really are idiots.. Satire, by its defintion is rather sparse of facts. So, im afraid to say, if thats where you getting your facts from then allthose-conpiracy papers must be the reliable information you use to decied what to do with your life

And as for corparations controlling the covernmetn, that sounds like a conspiracy theory with no justification for existance ::rolls eyes::

pablissimo · 28 Jan 2004, 02:31

You're the idiot, we've already covered that the satirical article linked to was in fact a satirical article being linked to. Note the proper links people have been shooting you down with that you have yet to respond to in any kind of meaningful way.

Jesus H. Christ.

G_frog · 28 Jan 2004, 02:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

One terrant himself is not a problem, but it builds up. One terrant here, antoehr there, soon you have nothing but terrants. This is what happend in The middle east, now its f'd up and we are trying now to fix it, by bringing freedom into the region.

Umm it wasn't the tyrants who were responsible for putting more tyrants in power you know, it was a democracy with which you may be familiar.

god damn it you're dragging me down to your level, i refuse to continue a debate conducted in terms so free of nuance.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:32

i didnt shift my argument, i never said that i believed WMDs or Terrorist ties justified war..

The middle east is mest up for a couple of tyrants rulling. They cause the people of the area to be poor.

A. Because its not a free-market state
B. Beacuse the tyrant takes ALL THe welth
C. Beacuse Tyrants are respected/arent able to get the aid they need to support there nations
D. Beacuse tryrants cant control everyone effectivly in the current age.

Because of all this, because of the poverrty, the citiznes become mad, and here we are, with all the mess.

Deepflow · 28 Jan 2004, 02:33

campaign donations + corporate tax cuts & rebuilding and oil contracts in iraq.

thats not a conspiracy theory duder,, thats business.

and i believe a decent quality of life for all is better than any chip in my body controlling my actions and no-one getting murdered any more. You wouldnt be able to have any fun any more. Especially if you are into S&M :gollum:

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

so, i suppose its better to let a few thousand people die by a ruthless dictator every year, as long as you dont piss lazy ass people off.

Nixonnnnnss bbaaaaccckkkk

There's no real reply to that, as I still can't believe you said it. I just wanted to do the Nixon reference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

you guys really are idiots.. Satire, by its defintion is rather sparse of facts. So, im afraid to say, if thats where you getting your facts from then allthose-conpiracy papers must be the reliable information you use to decied what to do with your life

Our earth english (Satire = Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.) isn't like your crazy mars english.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

And as for corparations controlling the covernmetn, that sounds like a conspiracy theory with no justification for existance ::rolls eyes::

Apart from the massive corporate contracts handed out to american companies to the exclusion of other nation's, apart from the connections that Bush, Cheney and the like have to the industry in question, and so on, and so forth.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:33

dragging you down to my level.. Oh yes, i forgot you europeans are to good to have a real discussion. PLZ

G_frog · 28 Jan 2004, 02:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

so, i suppose its better to let a few thousand people die by a ruthless dictator every year, as long as you dont piss lazy ass people off.

No, it's better to conduct foreign policy in a long-term manner that makes things better, not worse. Virtues such as patience, diplomacy, planning, respect for law and life, and honesty were sorely lacking in your government and mine during this debacle.

As you're a keen student of history, can you tell me what happens when those things are missing from an interventionist foreign policy in the middle east?

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:34

JrL your definition doenst say its composed of fact at all. plz.

pablissimo · 28 Jan 2004, 02:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

dragging you down to my level.. Oh yes, i forgot you europeans are to good to have a real discussion. PLZ

If you want a real discussion, stop making semi-informed points based on pop-media shite

Deepflow · 28 Jan 2004, 02:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

i didnt shift my argument, i never said that i believed WMDs or Terrorist ties justified war..

The middle east is mest up for a couple of tyrants rulling. They cause the people of the area to be poor.

A. Because its not a free-market state
B. Beacuse the tyrant takes ALL THe welth
C. Beacuse Tyrants are respected/arent able to get the aid they need to support there nations
D. Beacuse tryrants cant control everyone effectivly in the current age.

Because of all this, because of the poverrty, the citiznes become mad, and here we are, with all the mess.

A: cos everyone in a free market state is rich!

B: obviously not ALL of it, that would be economic suicide. But too much, obviously.
C: so UN sanctions on health aid are a good thing?
D: if saddam and the tyrants could control everything they would all still be in power.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

JrL your definition doenst say its composed of fact at all. plz.

That's the worst mangling of my nick I've EVER seen. And I don't see how you can get 'Satire is entirely FAKE!!!' out of that definition.

G_frog · 28 Jan 2004, 02:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

dragging you down to my level.. Oh yes, i forgot you europeans are to good to have a real discussion. PLZ

This isn't a discussion. It'll be a discussion when you stop shifting the subject when your preceding point is dealt with.

Leshy · 28 Jan 2004, 02:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Leshy i didnt say that the United States SOLEY FUNDED the UN, and the United States, with Rooselvelts Thirteen points, did form the beggingines of the UN.

I deleted my post as the flaws in it were already addressed (I overlooked page 2 when replying). Your claim that the US funds the UN and as such is somehow more important is thus pretty irrelevant; everyone funds the UN.

Quote:

ANd no, i wouldnt have a problem with my governement putting a chip in me, as long as it didnt, hurt, and didnt cost a lot of money for them to do. this would stop murder, rape and all sorts of horrible things. Im all for it. Tell me where to sign that petition

So you're an authoritarian, fair enough. I think you'll find yourself outnumbered by a large number of people who feel liberty is a fairly imporant thing.

And yes, I realise MrL_JaKiri beat me to saying this

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:39

Id say that the United states has plunty of pateince. We only acted after giving Saddam the option of getting the F out and after finding that France wouldnt support any resolution at all. The united states will also stay the course.. and so im sure it will be a success. The United States has given plunty of respect for life, even the life of its prisoners, giving them traditional foods and tools they need to pray with..

I didnt say i was keen in history, but namely the Roman area. Additionaly im sure that without planning or what you menchion, it would fail, like when russia tried it.. but i think this will turn of different, just because we have a plan, and patence, and respect.

just because your media decides to show everything negative from the ware doesnt mean thats all thates happenind.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:40

WIthout US funding, i seriously doubt the UN would continue to function at a fraction of the level it does not, if all all Leshy...

Deepflow · 28 Jan 2004, 02:41

you have a plan? The whole problem after the war is due to you not planning properly!