 |
|

05-21-2008, 06:11 PM
|
|
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 443
|
|
Quote:
|
You again agree with his premise. You don't get to occupy both sides of the fence.
|
Liberals do occupy both sides of the fence, hence the term Liberal equals hypocrite!
|

05-21-2008, 06:11 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Huh?
Posts: 6,180
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tileman
--- I agree with this statement whole heartidly. The UN is little more than an international political scene by which nations use POSTURING with their vanity and SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS! Furthermore, your quote adds to the fact our congress can only determine if a war is illegal since the UN has absolutely zero power over our constitution.
|
Wonderful...I'm glad we are making progress...did I miss the part where you finally came to realize your mistaken premise earlier regarding the "14 resolutions"?
__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."
Which side will you be on?
OBAMA/PEROT
|

05-21-2008, 06:16 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,588
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
NOYB was referring to the UN resolution...I'm guessing you are referring to our own congressional resolution...if not, would you be so kind as to provide the passage that "granted any and all means to remove Saddam from power"...you will have as much trouble supporting that statement as Tileman has with his bogus claim.
|
Actually the UN did authorize the US. Remember the whole talk about the second resolution? Here's a news flash, that wasn't needed. France lost big time on that.
|

05-21-2008, 06:16 PM
|
|
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 443
|
|
Quote:
|
Wonderful...I'm glad we are making progress...did I miss the part where you finally came to realize your mistaken premise earlier regarding the "14 resolutions"?
|
Nope! Resolutions under the UN dating back to the early 90's were never repealed nor were they voted to become inconclusive, nor voted to be completed, nor voided. Where stems an argument of if they were still active or inactive in which no new resolution passed stating military action could not be used.
Edited to add- the best wording to void previous resolutions was to say *No immediate military action* and we all well know nothing was immediate! Things take absolutely forver with the UN.
Last edited by Tileman; 05-21-2008 at 06:18 PM.
|

05-21-2008, 06:23 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Huh?
Posts: 6,180
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazed
You do understand that that is what teh the Thread is about??
Your first comment in the Thread....
US soldier refuses to serve in ‘illegal Iraq war’
Why is that such a big deal?
How many of you have had a co-worker complain about the company that you work for and suggested, "Well, you can always quit."?
Why can't he?
It's a big deal because as you just said, the War isn't illegal. You are supporting what he says as being ok....
This guy in question has fought for his country...why should he not be allowed to make a determination that can only be negated by, "my country right or wrong"?
He doesn't get to make that determination, you are sayibg he should, making the dtermination a Moral Equivalence issue...one that you are continuing to support.
I would be quite willing to give my life if you could get me into a situation where I could blow bin-Laden to hell but I sure as shit wouldn't lift a finger to fight the Bushshit war in Iraq.
You again agree with his premise. You don't get to occupy both sides of the fence.
|
As with any thread...the discussion can take many directions.
Let me try and clarify for you...because I take the position that I feel the position the military takes is sad and counterproductive and furthermore, I would not want someone such as the soldier in question watching my back it does not necessarily mean that I agree or disagree with his premise.
The only response I've made regarding the "legality" should clearly show that I don't agree with his argument...you can somehow try and twist that into some sort of fence sitting argument but I see it more as addressing various perspectives.
Saying Iraq is a Bushshit war doesn't make it illegal...more likely just stoopid.
Another pointer that may be helpful to you in reading comprehension...note that when a series of words is followed by a squiggly line looking like '?', that is known as a question...not a statement.
__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."
Which side will you be on?
OBAMA/PEROT
|

05-21-2008, 06:25 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 13,136
|
|
When you fuckign hilbillys cry about the UN...sSTOP USING TO JUSTIFY YOUR DUMBSHIT WARS.
Everything the UN has done is bullshit. That includes isreal and your fuckign wars.
__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest
Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.
Everything you just said is total bullshit
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8Ek...eature=related
|

05-21-2008, 06:25 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Huh?
Posts: 6,180
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakuanSoho
Actually the UN did authorize the US. Remember the whole talk about the second resolution? Here's a news flash, that wasn't needed. France lost big time on that.
|
Well then provide the substantiation...I've repeatedly tried to explain it and provided my substantiation...you are saying I'm wrong...prove it.
__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."
Which side will you be on?
OBAMA/PEROT
|

05-21-2008, 06:31 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,588
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
Well then provide the substantiation...I've repeatedly tried to explain it and provided my substantiation...you are saying I'm wrong...prove it.
|
Here you are.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/s...2/res1441e.pdf
One can argue that it didn't "authorize" it, just as one can argue that Senate did not "authorize" it, but in the end, both certainly provided a legal argument for it that would not have existed had they not passed it.
|

05-21-2008, 06:32 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Omaha, which is why Dave won't come here
Posts: 3,835
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
Well then provide the substantiation...I've repeatedly tried to explain it and provided my substantiation...you are saying I'm wrong...prove it.
|
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
Security Council resolution 678 (1990) on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait
I will await the requisite "Nuh-Uh".
__________________
There are those, I know, who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream.
~Archibald MacLeish
|

05-21-2008, 06:34 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Huh?
Posts: 6,180
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tileman
Nope! Resolutions under the UN dating back to the early 90's were never repealed nor were they voted to become inconclusive, nor voted to be completed, nor voided. Where stems an argument of if they were still active or inactive in which no new resolution passed stating military action could not be used.
Edited to add- the best wording to void previous resolutions was to say *No immediate military action* and we all well know nothing was immediate! Things take absolutely forver with the UN.
|
Of course they weren't repealed but then again they did not provide for as you claim...if you are unwilling to accept the "work" I did to try and help you in understanding the reality of the resolutions then at this point it is up to you to do the "work" to show that I am wrong...either that or be known as the liar that you are appearing to be.
As I mentioned before...they are bound by CHAPTER VII, articles 39 and 40 which then provides for article 41 which may or may not lead to article 42...I provided the text and the link.
__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."
Which side will you be on?
OBAMA/PEROT
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|