Pages: 1 … 16 17 18 19 20

 

2006-07-06 09:31:09
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6778|Southeastern USA
it was handled at the behest of the US, does the US not have a right to enforce a treaty when the moderator refuses to? If the UN had moderated the surrender of Nazi Germany and they refused dismantle Auschwitz, how many useless pieces of paper would the allies have to wait to be passed before they could do something about it? How many decades is an appropriate time to wait before doing the job yourself once the moderator has proven itself incompetent? As I've said numerous times, the UN is a monument to it's own impotence and should be dismantled.

and Joe, the two other most relevant resolutions are 678, and 1441, but these are just 3 of about 15 (passed over 12 years no less) I think, the fact that the UN had to write so many speaks volumes of their enforcement capabilites.

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-06 09:31:56)

2006-07-06 10:16:01
splixx
ChupaCABRA
+53|6968|Omaha, Nebraska

rawls wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

If it's so Liberal, why don't you just go away.  Please.

(Besides which, Clinton essentially got impeached for something that wasn't illegal)
actually, lying to a grand jury is quite illegal.
Too bad lying to the American public and the world is not.
So true.
2006-07-06 10:18:43
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6856

kr@cker wrote:

it was handled at the behest of the US, does the US not have a right to enforce a treaty when the moderator refuses to? If the UN had moderated the surrender of Nazi Germany and they refused dismantle Auschwitz, how many useless pieces of paper would the allies have to wait to be passed before they could do something about it? How many decades is an appropriate time to wait before doing the job yourself once the moderator has proven itself incompetent? As I've said numerous times, the UN is a monument to it's own impotence and should be dismantled.

and Joe, the two other most relevant resolutions are 678, and 1441, but these are just 3 of about 15 (passed over 12 years no less) I think, the fact that the UN had to write so many speaks volumes of their enforcement capabilites.
Your reply to my post was: there is also the treaty concerning the surrender of Iraq in the 90's, the treaty was violated, it would be criminal not to enforce said treaty, so how about we start impeaching the president that did nothing

It would not be the US in criminal violation.  So which story are you going with?  We were legally obligated to do so, or it was our right to?

Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-07-06 10:19:08)

2006-07-06 10:22:03
joewardog
Member
+6|6920|Great Plains (USA)

kr@cker wrote:

Joe, the two other most relevant resolutions are 678, and 1441, but these are just 3 of about 15 (passed over 12 years no less) I think, the fact that the UN had to write so many speaks volumes of their enforcement capabilites.
Duly noted, but I'm trying to stay on topic
2006-07-06 10:23:32
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6778|Southeastern USA

GATOR591957 wrote:

So which story are you going with?  We were legally obligated to do so, or it was our right to?
YES
2006-07-06 10:34:13
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6778|Southeastern USA

kr@cker wrote:

so if the NYT gets a list of the procedure for.....let's say making military base ID's, and prints it, then they have done absolutely nothing wrong? what a load of bullshit, if they get word of the POTUS (whoever it is, Bush, Clinton, Ted Nugent..) going to a surprise visit to country X, and they post it on their website in time for someone to set up an AA truck on the flight path, they were just excercising their first amendment rights? That excuse can only go so far, there is also the mention of "life, ilberty, and the pursuit of happiness", note the order in which they are placed, when you "liberty" to say whatever you want starts to interfere with someone else's "life", like the next person killed by a terrorist funded attack, you have illustrated that you are no longer able to handle the responsibility of the first amendment, the ability to do something doesn't mean that you are right to do it


and as stated numerous times before, Valerie Plame was not operating under "protected identity status", therefore her secret identity could not have been forfeited, as it did not exist, the fact that you work for an agency that employs secret agents does not automatically confer that you are a secret agent
hoooray for anonymous negs!!!
2006-07-06 10:38:48
SiMSaM16
Member
+48|6923|United States of America
I think its sad how many people hate Bush. 86% said yes? Wow. He probably picked the worst time to be president. Hes got so many decisions to make under the eyes of everyone in the world. I think hes a good president. He is definately better than Clinton.

You think Kerry could have done better? ROFL
2006-07-06 11:22:14
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6856

kr@cker wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

So which story are you going with?  We were legally obligated to do so, or it was our right to?
YES
Kracker, are you currently in this administration?  Your reply is one I would expect from them.
2006-07-06 11:26:56
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6856

SiMSaM16 wrote:

I think its sad how many people hate Bush. 86% said yes? Wow. He probably picked the worst time to be president. Hes got so many decisions to make under the eyes of everyone in the world. I think hes a good president. He is definately better than Clinton.

You think Kerry could have done better? ROFL
No, I don't think Kerry would have done a better job.  I do think Kerry would have more honest with the American people and not treated them as six year olds that cannot think for themselves.

What basis did you use to come to the conclusion that Bush is a better President than Clinton?  There are positives and negatives to both, I'm just curious.
2006-07-06 13:14:18
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7066

kr@cker wrote:

compilation of several dozen accusations in one post makes them irrefutable fact, duh
Its the wide spacing between sentences. That makes it so special ! You cant argue against wide margins, its just so impressive.
2006-07-06 13:15:46
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6778|Southeastern USA
don't forget spelling out the word "period"
2006-07-06 13:20:50
Darth_Fleder
Mod from the Church of the Painful Truth
+533|7036|Orlando, FL - Age 43

usmarine2005 wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html
How dare you try to cloud the issues with facts!

U.N. Resolution 1441 wrote:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-07-06 13:26:49)

2006-07-06 13:26:20
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6856

Darth_Fleder wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html
How dare you try to cloud the issues with facts!
You're equating fox news and facts.  I believe that's an oxymoron. Like peace force.

Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-07-06 13:26:45)

2006-07-06 13:29:47
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7066

Bubbalo wrote:

As to the topic, I find it curious that if she finds it that big an issue she waited so long, and someone just happened to ask her at that exact moment.

And no, I don't get a mod if you quote me.  I get a mod if you quote me out of context repeatedly and then refuse to tell me where I said what it is you're quoting.  It's called harassment.  I also find it interesting that you accuse the mods of Liberal bias when they just banned Xietsu.
I didn't quote you out of context,

Bubbalo wrote:

The point was that the US could strike the USSR with nukes, the USSR could not strike the US.
I just quoted you verbatim, The fact that what you said is a source of intense embarrassment for you, is your problem alone, isn't it?
did I not say they asked her during the campaign ? did you even read? it took almost 2 years of litigation. don't respond if you don't read, .... Vanquished !
2006-07-06 13:32:26
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6856

GATOR591957 wrote:

Darth_Fleder wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html
How dare you try to cloud the issues with facts!
You're equating fox news and facts.  I believe that's an oxymoron. Like peace force.
I got this in the first paragraph: The document, apparently written before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist

Apparently, that is what you're calling facts?
2006-07-06 13:45:15
Darth_Fleder
Mod from the Church of the Painful Truth
+533|7036|Orlando, FL - Age 43

GATOR591957 wrote:

Darth_Fleder wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html
How dare you try to cloud the issues with facts!
You're equating fox news and facts.  I believe that's an oxymoron. Like peace force.
Like Dan Rather and his forged documents 60 days before an election...or the NYT "All the news we can dream up to print'?

Once again, since we changed the subject....


U.N. Resolution 1441 wrote:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
2006-07-06 14:05:13
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6912|Canada
how is that fox tripe any more in the way of fact than what I wrote before?


"That's the most likely conclusion drawn from an apparent training manual unearthed in captured Iraqi government computer files translated and analyzed exclusively for Fox News*, and made public for the first time."

sounds a bit  fishy to say the least.  Because it took this long for programmers to  "unearth" this relevant "material"

*right here is where it loses all credibility

does anyone read Associated Press?  Perhaps a news agency OUTSIDE North America?

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-06 14:10:01)

2006-07-06 14:16:27
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6856

Darth_Fleder wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

Darth_Fleder wrote:


How dare you try to cloud the issues with facts!
You're equating fox news and facts.  I believe that's an oxymoron. Like peace force.
Like Dan Rather and his forged documents 60 days before an election...or the NYT "All the news we can dream up to print'?

Once again, since we changed the subject....


U.N. Resolution 1441 wrote:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Forgive me Darth for going off topic, however you were the one who introduced this someone heard this someone saw that rubish as fact.
2006-07-06 14:19:37
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6778|Southeastern USA
?
2006-07-06 14:20:22
Darth_Fleder
Mod from the Church of the Painful Truth
+533|7036|Orlando, FL - Age 43

GATOR591957 wrote:

Darth_Fleder wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:


You're equating fox news and facts.  I believe that's an oxymoron. Like peace force.
Like Dan Rather and his forged documents 60 days before an election...or the NYT "All the news we can dream up to print'?

Once again, since we changed the subject....


U.N. Resolution 1441 wrote:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Forgive me Darth for going off topic, however you were the one who introduced this someone heard this someone saw that rubish as fact.
NP.... I admit my culpability in changing the subject as well.
2006-07-06 14:29:54
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6778|Southeastern USA
well it's still pretty relevant since people keep using it as a reason to impeach Bush, I actually kinda hope some sort of impeachment proceedings go forth, since it would be impossible for the media to cover them without telling everyone just how much they've (the media) represented events and mis-stated facts.


edit: added (the media) for clarity

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-06 14:37:50)

2006-07-06 14:32:51
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6856

kr@cker wrote:

well it's still pretty relevant since people keep using it as a reason to impeach Bush, I actually kinda hope some sort of impeachment proceedings go forth, since it would be impossible for the media to cover them without telling everyone just how much they've represented events and mis-stated facts.
I agree.  Odd isn't it.

Can you imagine an impeachment process.  Who would dare initiate it.  Whoever it will be can assure themselves of a job in th private sector next election.  Sad, but true.

Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-07-06 14:35:44)

2006-07-06 15:48:34
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6997

lowing wrote:

My favorite line...."I don't support terrorism".........I hear it alot..........You don't support it, but have no inclination to DO anything about it. lol
I have plenty of inclination to do something about it. You can start my asking these people “why are you terrorists?”  That would be a good start. Deal with the issues at a grass roots level. And they don’t attack the USA because you are free. That is just crap.
Fighting fire with fire does not work. It’s typical, hose everyone down with a machine gun and hope you got some of the terrorists, conservative rubbish.

Are liberals the only ones with enough brain capacity to think in this situation?
2006-07-06 15:52:13
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6997

[n00b]Tyler wrote:

god there is so much true stuff that when ppl see it that support bush can only say: PROVE IT LIBERAL
DISPROVE IT CONSERVATIVE

should be easy, yeah?

 

Pages: 1 … 16 17 18 19 20

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard