Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6763

joewardog wrote:

The community may want them to be binding, but I'm reminded of a certain example in history, the League of Nations.  Woodrow Wilson (US President) helped to found the League of Nations but the US Senate did not ratify the treaty.  Hence, the US was not a real member of the League.  In essense, screw whatever the world wants or thinks.
A stupid example.  The US didn't assist in the creation of the convention, it voted it also voted it into power.

joewardog wrote:

Out of curiousity though, when was AFAIK ratified (don't have time to do the research)?
After a little checking, I can't find anything.  As such, we'll just assume it hasn't been ratified, for the sake of streamlining argument.

I still argue that it is legally binding on an international setting.  If not, then the President has acted against the will of the Senate.  Surely this would be an offence?
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6758

Bubbalo wrote:

joewardog wrote:

The community may want them to be binding, but I'm reminded of a certain example in history, the League of Nations.  Woodrow Wilson (US President) helped to found the League of Nations but the US Senate did not ratify the treaty.  Hence, the US was not a real member of the League.  In essense, screw whatever the world wants or thinks.
A stupid example.  The US didn't assist in the creation of the convention, it voted it also voted it into power.

joewardog wrote:

Out of curiousity though, when was AFAIK ratified (don't have time to do the research)?
After a little checking, I can't find anything.  As such, we'll just assume it hasn't been ratified, for the sake of streamlining argument.

I still argue that it is legally binding on an international setting.  If not, then the President has acted against the will of the Senate.  Surely this would be an offence?
Was a bill seriously passed that had the same acronymic set-up as "as far as I know"? OHMUHGAW FOR TEH WINZZ!!one hundredeleven!!11!!!!!one thousand one hundred eleven!11!!one!!1!!!!
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7039
Note to all: It can be a bit frustrating to try and argue facts and logic with some one who can make a statement like this

Bubbalo wrote:

The point was that the US could strike the USSR with nukes, the USSR could not strike the US.
and still believe from that he has important views and opinions to force on others.

When his argument reaches a dead end as it always does.....

Horseman 77 wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

1. Paula Jones was suing him for deformation of character.
2. Lewinsky was called as a Witness. He tried to get her to change her story.
3. Then he lied about it under oath.

Thats three steps you had to follow, Tell us where you got lost?

Bubbalo wrote:

The part where Paula Jones waited till he was President to go to court, for one.
Basically clinton said during his campaign to be president in 1991 " I never cheated on hillary "

Some one knew he dated Paula Jones and asked her about it, she said " Yes I went out with him. "

He said " If you drag a $100 dollar bill thru a trailer park you are bound to get some one to say anything. "

She said " You are a lair and now you must publicly apologize "

Do you get it now,
he simply leaves the discussion without an other word or reply.

Because of this I believe he is deliberately pretending ( no one is that dumb ) to be an insipid, immature, ostentatious, little child in some misguided effort to create repetitive, circular arguments in every single thread.

one more classic quote from the dumpster of History's losers

Ikarti wrote:

I think .50 cal should be ok as long as its only used on US troops.
keep these Quotes " little jewels of wisdom " in mind when you are considering a response to either of these two.
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6829

lowing wrote:

By you attacking the president and this war on terror, I can only assume you would rather let the terrorist have their way, which also means you side with them. you can not be against this war against this president against the way this country is fighting and NOT side with the terrorist. ... Believe me, the latter, the terrorist love to see, that is way I call you their ally.
This is an ever tiring act by this administration, and now the underlings are picking up on it.  I.E. If you're not for the war, you must be against the troops.  I grow so tired of this foolishness it aggravates the hell out of me.

Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-07-03 14:49:58)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

GATOR591957 wrote:

lowing wrote:

By you attacking the president and this war on terror, I can only assume you would rather let the terrorist have their way, which also means you side with them. you can not be against this war against this president against the way this country is fighting and NOT side with the terrorist. ... Believe me, the latter, the terrorist love to see, that is way I call you their ally.
This is an ever tiring act by this administration, and now the underlings are picking up on it.  I.E. If you're not for the war, you must be against the troops.  I grow so tired of this foolishness it aggravates the hell out of me.
Yeah well,  telling us that you hate this president, you hate fighting this war, you hate holding prisoners, you hate what our troops are doing, you hate that when we killed Zarqawi we celebrated because he was a "human being" and shame on us, then say "ohhhhhh I love and  support the troops and am greatful for them" gets pretty fuckin' old as well.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

spastic bullet wrote:

lowing wrote:

I see what you are saying now. Now my question becomes if we ALLLLLLLLLL know how "ruthless" these groups are, why are you not will to stand toe to toe with them and defend yourselves against them?
Because that offer is not on the table.  It's all spectacle (e.g. 9/11, beheading videos) and hit-and-run (e.g. Iraq insurgency).  They hope that by provoking the US and others, they can turn their dream of a big holy war into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

They need the support of ordinary Muslims and -- because extremists are such hateful bigots -- the only way they can get that is by tricking the US into overreacting.  They then say to other Muslims "look what evil the infidels are capable of -- how can you be so spineless in the face of such evil?"  Sound familiar?

lowing wrote:

I admit to taking the position of 2 choices, fight or succumb. IF you have a third option I am all ears. Please don't come back with diplomacy, since negotiating with terrorists is not an option ( of which I agree)
The third option is viewing the problem from outside the box.  I know it's not as teh seksy as "fight or succumb", but unless your ultimate goal is to wipe out Islam , we have to seriously start thinking about how we're going to discredit al Qaeda in the eyes of the Muslim world.
I can agree with that...........but...........................in the mean time, are saying we should just sit back and take more lumps like we did during the Clinton administration?? Or.......do we fight back??
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6911|Wilmington, DE, US
Ah! The conservative fallback manuever!

BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON!
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6829

lowing wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

lowing wrote:

By you attacking the president and this war on terror, I can only assume you would rather let the terrorist have their way, which also means you side with them. you can not be against this war against this president against the way this country is fighting and NOT side with the terrorist. ... Believe me, the latter, the terrorist love to see, that is way I call you their ally.
This is an ever tiring act by this administration, and now the underlings are picking up on it.  I.E. If you're not for the war, you must be against the troops.  I grow so tired of this foolishness it aggravates the hell out of me.
Yeah well,  telling us that you hate this president, you hate fighting this war, you hate holding prisoners, you hate what our troops are doing, you hate that when we killed Zarqawi we celebrated because he was a "human being" and shame on us, then say "ohhhhhh I love and  support the troops and am greatful for them" gets pretty fuckin' old as well.
Whoa there big fella.  Where did I write that?  I am against the war.  Basically because I think we have far too many problems at home that needed fixed before we went elsewhere.  Never said I hated the President.  Dislike him, think he's one of the worst, but don't hate him.  Never said I hated holding prisoners.  I did say I feel there needs to be a process to identify guilty vs. not guilty.  Never said I hated holding them.  Never said anything about Zarcoward.  Felt his time was way overdue.  So when you decide to go off the deep end.  At least make sure your facts are in line...
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6970

Ikarti wrote:

Ah! The conservative fallback manuever!

BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON!
Standard proceedure for neo-cons or any-cons
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6751|Southeastern USA
forgot, he is the pope of all president's and is therefore infallible
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

GATOR591957 wrote:

lowing wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:


This is an ever tiring act by this administration, and now the underlings are picking up on it.  I.E. If you're not for the war, you must be against the troops.  I grow so tired of this foolishness it aggravates the hell out of me.
Yeah well,  telling us that you hate this president, you hate fighting this war, you hate holding prisoners, you hate what our troops are doing, you hate that when we killed Zarqawi we celebrated because he was a "human being" and shame on us, then say "ohhhhhh I love and  support the troops and am greatful for them" gets pretty fuckin' old as well.
Whoa there big fella.  Where did I write that?  I am against the war.  Basically because I think we have far too many problems at home that needed fixed before we went elsewhere.  Never said I hated the President.  Dislike him, think he's one of the worst, but don't hate him.  Never said I hated holding prisoners.  I did say I feel there needs to be a process to identify guilty vs. not guilty.  Never said I hated holding them.  Never said anything about Zarcoward.  Felt his time was way overdue.  So when you decide to go off the deep end.  At least make sure your facts are in line...
I am guilty..........I used your post to sum up all the bullshit I have read in ALL the verious post on this issue. I was speaking in general as I am assuming you were about my post (since I never said you were against our troops either)
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

BN wrote:

Ikarti wrote:

Ah! The conservative fallback manuever!

BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON!
Standard proceedure for neo-cons or any-cons
Yer kiddin' right?? I mean hell you blame Bush for every little negative thing that happens in this war, how is it that Clinton is somehow NOT responsible for the events that transpire under his watch??
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6970

lowing wrote:

BN wrote:

Ikarti wrote:

Ah! The conservative fallback manuever!

BLAME CLINTON! BLAME CLINTON!
Standard proceedure for neo-cons or any-cons
Yer kiddin' right?? I mean hell you blame Bush for every little negative thing that happens in this war, how is it that Clinton is somehow NOT responsible for the events that transpire under his watch??
well there are several people on this board who blame Clinton for 9/11. Sounds like a right wing conspiracy theory to me.

On a lighter note. See what the Secret Service are up to:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/01/D8IJEOMG0.html

great use of man power.
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6751|Southeastern USA
great another shot in the dark anti-establishment flame post from BN.......
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6743|vancouver

lowing wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

lowing wrote:

I see what you are saying now. Now my question becomes if we ALLLLLLLLLL know how "ruthless" these groups are, why are you not will to stand toe to toe with them and defend yourselves against them?
Because that offer is not on the table.  It's all spectacle (e.g. 9/11, beheading videos) and hit-and-run (e.g. Iraq insurgency).  They hope that by provoking the US and others, they can turn their dream of a big holy war into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

They need the support of ordinary Muslims and -- because extremists are such hateful bigots -- the only way they can get that is by tricking the US into overreacting.  They then say to other Muslims "look what evil the infidels are capable of -- how can you be so spineless in the face of such evil?"  Sound familiar?

lowing wrote:

I admit to taking the position of 2 choices, fight or succumb. IF you have a third option I am all ears. Please don't come back with diplomacy, since negotiating with terrorists is not an option ( of which I agree)
The third option is viewing the problem from outside the box.  I know it's not as teh seksy as "fight or succumb", but unless your ultimate goal is to wipe out Islam , we have to seriously start thinking about how we're going to discredit al Qaeda in the eyes of the Muslim world.
I can agree with that...........but...........................in the mean time, are you saying we should just sit back and take more lumps like we did during the Clinton administration?? Or.......do we fight back??
No, that's the false dilemma rearing its pretty head again.  What I am saying is we need to fight back smarter, rather than in a way that plays right into their hands.  Remember the post about Zarqawi's alleged planning document?  It was presented in these forums as proof the insurgency is faltering, but if you read through the document itself, you find something quite interesting:

Zarqawi allegedly wrote:

The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran?

It is not known whether American is serious in its animosity towards Iraq [sic?], because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:

   1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shiite Iranian side.
   2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shiite Iranian side.
   3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.
   4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shiite fingerprints and evidence.
   5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).
   6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests.
Whether the document is authentic or not, it is an uncontroversial fact this has been their plan all along -- to draw us into conflicts that are very difficult to win without alienating broad cross-sections of the Muslim world.  Remember, this is the only way they can rally support among ordinary Muslims.

The problem, as I see it, is that some countries' leadership are not acting in the interests of their general population.  They instead view the situation as an opportunity to enrich their financiers, all the while securing support in exactly the same manner as al Qaeda -- by accusing their political opponents of cowardice in the face of an uncompromising enemy.

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  That is easy.  All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.  It works the same way in any country." -- Hermann Goering
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6970

kr@cker wrote:

great another shot in the dark anti-establishment flame post from BN.......
How is that a shot in the dark? How is that a flame?

I am not anti-establishment, I am anti corrupt government.
splixx
ChupaCABRA
+53|6941|Omaha, Nebraska

BN wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

great another shot in the dark anti-establishment flame post from BN.......
How is that a shot in the dark? How is that a flame?

I am not anti-establishment, I am anti corrupt government.
Anti-Corrupt Government.. Is that possible in the US?
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6751|Southeastern USA
ok, so lets see some details, hmmm, looking at the article, THERE AREN'T ANY, you imply that it's a waste of time, but you have no clue what is on the camera, therefore it is a shot in the dark, you're hoping that people will misread it and take it to mean that the secret service is confiscating Bradjelina's pics because they're Bradjelina's, just like that insipid Guardian article, in your thread titled "why", some hippy walks up to Downing street and plops her fat ass down with a sign hanging around her neck to read that paper, then they try to tell everyone that the cop stopped here because she was reading the paper, not because she was in front of the British PM's fucking house, this is ridiculous, keep negging me without signing it you pussy

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-03 19:43:38)

Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6763
Horseman: Could you please link to where I said that so I can read the whole post including the leadup?

As to the other quote, I'm sorry I missed it.  It happens.  I still find it highly suspicious that she didn't come forward earlier.

If you fail to tell me where I've said this, which I feel is a highly reasonable request, I will ask for moderator intervention on the grounds that you are harassing me.
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6970

kr@cker wrote:

you pussy
no need to stop being a lady
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6751|Southeastern USA
it's not our job to discredit Al-Quaeda for the Muslim world, it's the job of the Muslims, like the christians discredited the Klan after it became a racist organization (Nathan Bedford Forrest was concerned with states rights when he founded it, and disbanded it when it became centered on race) after it decided to run around with christian flags and other christian symbols, it sickens me to think that students are going to school wearing green armbands (a symbol of militant islam, most notably Hamas and the PLO) and claiming right to free speech and such, yet the ten commandments cannot even be displayed in a historical context, when the first four words are "thou shalt not kill", and no I'm not a Christian, I have major issues with god (if there is one) due to some events in my personal life, I'm just objective enough to be nauseated by the double standard and hypocrisy forced down my throat in the name of cultural tolerance

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-03 21:58:37)

Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6763
Oh, right, but it's not a double standard for the US to support Middle East dictatorships then wage war in the name of democracy?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

BN wrote:

lowing wrote:

BN wrote:


Standard proceedure for neo-cons or any-cons
Yer kiddin' right?? I mean hell you blame Bush for every little negative thing that happens in this war, how is it that Clinton is somehow NOT responsible for the events that transpire under his watch??
well there are several people on this board who blame Clinton for 9/11. Sounds like a right wing conspiracy theory to me.

On a lighter note. See what the Secret Service are up to:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/01/D8IJEOMG0.html

great use of man power.
umm Clinton's actions or lack of it is to blame for 911. Since 911 was long in the planning stages under the Clinton administration and the terrorists did not know Bush was going to be the next president, it is safe to assume that irregardless as to who the sitting president was, 911 was going to happen. The man was in office for 8 years prior to 911, Bush was there 8 months for christ sake and you want to pin this on him???
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6911|Wilmington, DE, US

Bubbalo wrote:

Oh, right, but it's not a double standard for the US to support Middle East dictatorships then wage war in the name of democracy?
All while cutting support for Hamas and ignoring cries for democracy in Nepal.
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6911|Wilmington, DE, US

lowing wrote:

BN wrote:

lowing wrote:


Yer kiddin' right?? I mean hell you blame Bush for every little negative thing that happens in this war, how is it that Clinton is somehow NOT responsible for the events that transpire under his watch??
well there are several people on this board who blame Clinton for 9/11. Sounds like a right wing conspiracy theory to me.

On a lighter note. See what the Secret Service are up to:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/01/D8IJEOMG0.html

great use of man power.
umm Clinton's actions or lack of it is to blame for 911. Since 911 was long in the planning stages under the Clinton administration and the terrorists did not know Bush was going to be the next president, it is safe to assume that irregardless as to who the sitting president was, 911 was going to happen. The man was in office for 8 years prior to 911, Bush was there 8 months for christ sake and you want to pin this on him???
That's rather irrelevant considering Bush had warnings on the guys before the attacks.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard