EU as joke (modified)

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:51:59 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

That was his point, mine was "Europe tend to respect UN
resolutions".


Ahhh, now we're getting specific. Europe respects resolutions.
OK, can you name the last time the US violated a UN resolution?

I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
nations has agreed on.

"What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack
on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto
resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it?

You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
it has failed so far.

And Norway has done exactly what?

As for US violation? Would you care to look a bit closer
on the Iraqi conflict? I won't pretend to be an expert,
I can only comment what I've seen brought up in the newsmedia,
but, for instance, it seems to me the US is violating UN
General Assembly resolution 377, which decleares that it
is to meet to resolve any possible threats to or breach of
the peace if the UNSC fails to maintain peace because of a
lack of unanimity.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/852...5340060479d/55
c2b84da9e0052b05256554005726c6%21OpenDocument


Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly
formed and signed in 1945) which require that:

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
and security, and justice, are not endangered".

The UN is a sad joke, and sometimes must be treated
as such.

It also violates Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter which
declears that no member state has the authority to enforce
any resolution with armed force on its own and also that the
UNSC -must- authorize the use of military force.

And the former Soviet Union and the PRC followed this?
The fact that your country is of no military value does
not mean that the US should not act in our National
interests.

It violates Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter which
states that:

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as
crimes under; international law: Planning, preparation,
initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war
in violation of international treaties, agreements
or assurances"


Not a factor. Your support of Saddam is despicable, not
the US action which deposed him.

According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?


Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
regularly visited by the International Red Cross.

If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq, it
appears both France and Germany much more recently than the
US....

Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war
on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.


No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.

Again, diverting the subject. The subject is; Europe always
obeys the UN and the US doesn't.

That was your subject, not mine.

I'm sorry, I've got it clarified now. Europe respects UN
resolutions and the US does not. That's your point. I'll be
waiting while you tell me the last UN resolution the US
violated.

I'm sure you realize the difference between "tend to" and
"always".


The US hasn't had a live test in over 25 years.

That the US won't ratify CTBT seems to indicate they will.

That is idiotic. We will not ratify treaties that are designed to
destroy our military power, having said that, we have no need
to perform such tests and no plans to conduct them.

(snip)
IOM it's also a good example of how the US feels it's in a
position to dominate the decitions and will of other nations.

In some issues it's seems quite difficult for the US to come
to realize that its national interests does not go before the
interests of the rest of the world. In particular the UN
wasn't created as a benefitial body for the US, but for
the entire international community. You might argue that it's
far from perfect, but what better choices are available?


The national interests of the US definitely come before the
interests of the "rest of the world". The UN is a joke, and
not a very good one at that.

(snip)

Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.

Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.


Quick question; was there a UN resolution
condeming Egypt for their attack on Isreal during the Yom Kippur
War in 1973? Was one even seriously debated in the security
council?

There wasn't a resolution to my knowledge. I don't think
there was a UN resolution condeming Israel in 1967, 1956
or 1947 either.


Regards...


As I said, the UN is a sad joke

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote in
news
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:51:59 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:


I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
nations has agreed on.

"What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack
on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto
resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it?

Of course not.

You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
it has failed so far.

And Norway has done exactly what?

Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a
breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self
rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway
has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis
and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with
Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental
palestine demands at a time when most western countries
still were keeping its distance to the PLO.

Sharon, with the apparent support of the US, has compromised
much of the work and progress we had accomplished in recent
years.

Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly
formed and signed in 1945) which require that:

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
and security, and justice, are not endangered".

The UN is a sad joke, and sometimes must be treated
as such.

Sadly that's a typical arrogant posture by some, perhaps
who sees the world as their own personal playing ground.


According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.


By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?


Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
regularly visited by the International Red Cross.

You might find this article from the Guardian interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html



If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq,
it appears both France and Germany much more recently than the
US....

Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war
on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.


No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.

It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a
matter of telling right from wrong.


(snip)

Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.

Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.

You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write.
I don't think I ever meant the above statement to
indicate world domination in that particular areas.

Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
and equality between the sexes far more developed than
most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
(and women).

We also tend not to wage in wars around the world which
makes us a target for international terrorism, or other
nations guns.




Regards...

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:08:24 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
news
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:51:59 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:


I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
nations has agreed on.

"What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack
on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto
resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it?

Of course not.

You say "of course not, yet you give no examples or cites.
The UN has been anti-American for many years.

You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
it has failed so far.

And Norway has succeeded ????

And Norway has done exactly what?

Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a
breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self
rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway
has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis
and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with
Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental
palestine demands at a time when most western countries
still were keeping its distance to the PLO.


The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.
Sharon, with the apparent support of the US, has compromised
much of the work and progress we had accomplished in recent
years.

Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly
formed and signed in 1945) which require that:

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
and security, and justice, are not endangered".

The UN is a sad joke, and sometimes must be treated
as such.

Sadly that's a typical arrogant posture by some, perhaps
who sees the world as their own personal playing ground.


According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.


It explicitly is a *correct* argument. The rules have changed,
terrorists are a threat, and any country that harbors or
supports them is a threat to the US

By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?


Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
regularly visited by the International Red Cross.

You might find this article from the Guardian interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html


The Guardian is far out of sync on this issue.


If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq,
it appears both France and Germany much more recently than the
US....

Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war
on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.


No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.

It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a
matter of telling right from wrong.

Yes, it certainly does have to do with bravery, and the lack
there of. Old europe is afraid of "irritating" the terrorists.


(snip)

Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.

Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.

You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write.
I don't think I ever meant the above statement to
indicate world domination in that particular areas.

Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
and equality between the sexes far more developed than
most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
(and women).

"Decades ahead of the US"?? What is your unemployment rate,
suicide rate?

We also tend not to wage in wars around the world which
makes us a target for international terrorism, or other
nations guns.


That is the definition of cowardice.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:08:24 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

"What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack
on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto
resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it?

Of course not.

You say "of course not, yet you give no examples or cites.

I'm sorry? There are hardly any "examples", analysis or
contructive arguments at all in your posts.


The UN has been anti-American for many years.



You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
it has failed so far.

And Norway has succeeded ????

The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever between
PLO and Israel. It did more with less than any effort
in recent years. The peaceprocess was going forward until
Sharon's goverment came into power.


And Norway has done exactly what?

Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a
breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self
rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway
has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis
and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with
Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental
palestine demands at a time when most western countries
still were keeping its distance to the PLO.


The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.


According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.


It explicitly is a *correct* argument. The rules have changed,

If you like to change the rules when it fits your interests,
then yes, I suppose you can make it be correct.


terrorists are a threat, and any country that harbors or
supports them is a threat to the US

Terrorism is hardly a new phenomena, and you really
don't hear the US confronting the UN with a proposal for
redesign of the Chartes to fit the supposed new "world order".

Of course, the US need the rest of the world to obey by
the Charters, so that future renegade nations wont start
attacking eachother because of facial factors. The
current US goverment -really- thinks it's in a unique
position to bring international matters into their own hands.


By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?


Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
regularly visited by the International Red Cross.

You might find this article from the Guardian interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html


The Guardian is far out of sync on this issue.

No example?

The Guardian is right on the spot, the US takes international
law into their own hands.

It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
administration's undermining of the International Criminal
Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating
in UN peacekeeping operations. It's a clear indication of
doublestandards when it comes to matters on international
justice.


If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq,
it appears both France and Germany much more recently than
the US....

Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to
war on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.


No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.

It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a
matter of telling right from wrong.

Yes, it certainly does have to do with bravery, and the lack
there of. Old europe is afraid of "irritating" the terrorists.

Old, but wise perhaps, americans really have no idea what it's
like to have the horrors of war and occupation at ones own
doorstep.



(snip)

Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.

Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.

You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write.
I don't think I ever meant the above statement to
indicate world domination in that particular areas.

Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
and equality between the sexes far more developed than
most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
(and women).

"Decades ahead of the US"??

Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
equality is renound throughout the world.


What is your unemployment rate,

Currently about 4%.

suicide rate?

12.8 per 100,000 people in 1998.



Regards...

The
current US goverment -really- thinks it's in a unique
position to bring international matters into their own hands.


The current US government has been forced to take international matters into
their own hands (with the help of dozens of supporting nations) because nations
like France, Germany, Begium and Russia are determined to "ham string" the US
in the UN so bad that the next terrorist attack kills 30,000 Americans. We are
not going to let that happen.

The Guardian is right on the spot, the US takes international
law into their own hands.


Can you give an example. Any example you give regarding Iraq, I counter with a
UN Resolution authorizing military action.

It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
administration's undermining of the International Criminal
Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel
operating
in UN peacekeeping operations.

First, the previous administration wouldn't sign the agreement either (I guess
Clinton was just liberal enough for most Europeans to give him a "pass" on most
issues). Second, if you're too blind to see why the US won't sign the
agreement, its hopeless to argue. Belgium indicted Gen. Tommy Franks shortly
after Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off, this would be a daily occurance
should the US sign the accord.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:02:43 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

You say "of course not, yet you give no examples or cites.

I'm sorry? There are hardly any "examples", analysis or
contructive arguments at all in your posts.


That is not true, and even if it were, that does not mean that your
specious arguments are valid

The UN has been anti-American for many years.



You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
it has failed so far.

And Norway has succeeded ????

The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever between
PLO and Israel. It did more with less than any effort
in recent years. The peaceprocess was going forward until
Sharon's goverment came into power.

The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
of the region believed that they would work,


And Norway has done exactly what?

Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a
breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self
rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway
has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis
and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with
Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental
palestine demands at a time when most western countries
still were keeping its distance to the PLO.

You foolishly engaged in a public relations exercise which
was doomed to failure.


The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.

I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears to.

According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.

You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
Living in your fantasy world again.


It explicitly is a *correct* argument. The rules have changed,

If you like to change the rules when it fits your interests,
then yes, I suppose you can make it be correct.


terrorists are a threat, and any country that harbors or
supports them is a threat to the US

Terrorism is hardly a new phenomena, and you really
don't hear the US confronting the UN with a proposal for
redesign of the Chartes to fit the supposed new "world order".

We, unlike Norway, will defend ourselves when we are
attacked.

Of course, the US need the rest of the world to obey by
the Charters, so that future renegade nations wont start
attacking eachother because of facial factors. The
current US goverment -really- thinks it's in a unique
position to bring international matters into their own hands.


Well, being the only super power in existence, we ARE in
a position to lead in international affairs.


By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?


Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
regularly visited by the International Red Cross.

You might find this article from the Guardian interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html


The Guardian is far out of sync on this issue.

No example?

The Guardian is right on the spot, the US takes international
law into their own hands.

Of course we do, since the UN, NATO, etc. are sniveling
little debating societies. Someone has to defend
freedom, and silly little countries like Norway are
either incapable or too cowardly to do it.


It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
administration's undermining of the International Criminal
Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating
in UN peacekeeping operations. It's a clear indication of
doublestandards when it comes to matters on international
justice.

The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
happen.

If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq,
it appears both France and Germany much more recently than
the US....

Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to
war on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.


No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.

It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a
matter of telling right from wrong.

Yes, it certainly does have to do with bravery, and the lack
there of. Old europe is afraid of "irritating" the terrorists.

Old, but wise perhaps, americans really have no idea what it's
like to have the horrors of war and occupation at ones own
doorstep.


Not wise, just cowardly.

(snip)

Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.

Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.

You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write.
I don't think I ever meant the above statement to
indicate world domination in that particular areas.

Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
and equality between the sexes far more developed than
most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
(and women).

"Decades ahead of the US"??

Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
equality is renound throughout the world.

That is ridiculous.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:02:43 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever between
PLO and Israel. It did more with less than any effort
in recent years. The peaceprocess was going forward until
Sharon's goverment came into power.

The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
of the region believed that they would work,

I take it you feel equally doubtfull of the religious
insight of the two signatorys, Arafat and Rabin, as well.

Oslo was a milestone and successful in that it brought
the two parts closer and establishing PA self rule.


The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.

I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears
to.

I do know from my contact with americans that your views
probably doesn't represent the majority.


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.


You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
Living in your fantasy world again.

If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
administration has failed to show any proof linking
Saddam to 9/11.

The misconception is widespread though, here an excerpt
from the recent PIPA analysis of seven nationwide US
polls dealing with this.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir...2_03_Press.pdf

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

[..]

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.



It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
administration's undermining of the International Criminal
Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating
in UN peacekeeping operations. It's a clear indication of
doublestandards when it comes to matters on international
justice.

The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
happen.

Actually the US played a major part in the design of the
ICC framework had strong support from much of Congress.


Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
and equality between the sexes far more developed than
most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
(and women).

"Decades ahead of the US"??

Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
equality is renound throughout the world.

That is ridiculous.

We're not called "welfare states" for nothing. Here is an
easy to read summary if you want to learn something about it:

http://sdd.disp.dk/SDD01/main/isabelle/wefare.html


Regards...

Actually the US played a major part in the design of the
ICC framework had strong support from much of Congress.

Now I know you're living in a fantasy world. Strong support from congress would
have meant Clinton signing the agreement immediately instead of one of his last
acts on his way out the door. Clinton knew congress would not ratify it, he was
just trying to make a statement regarding his legacy. Bush decided not to waste
everyones time and removed it from the Senate docket.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:02:43 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever between
PLO and Israel. It did more with less than any effort
in recent years. The peaceprocess was going forward until
Sharon's goverment came into power.

The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
of the region believed that they would work,

I take it you feel equally doubtfull of the religious
insight of the two signatorys, Arafat and Rabin, as well.

Oslo was a milestone and successful in that it brought
the two parts closer and establishing PA self rule.


What "self rule"? The religious "insight" of Rabin and
Arafat had nothing to do with it.

The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.

I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears
to.

I do know from my contact with americans that your views
probably doesn't represent the majority.

Wrong.


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.


You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
Living in your fantasy world again.

If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
administration has failed to show any proof linking
Saddam to 9/11.

There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the terrorists
was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training camps
for terrorists. "Shared by many" is not an issue, what some
sniveling little euro countries "think" will not deter us from
defending ourselves.


The misconception is widespread though, here an excerpt
from the recent PIPA analysis of seven nationwide US
polls dealing with this.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir...2_03_Press.pdf

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

[..]

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.


That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
from the fact that PIPA was involved.


It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
administration's undermining of the International Criminal
Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating
in UN peacekeeping operations. It's a clear indication of
doublestandards when it comes to matters on international
justice.

The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
happen.

Actually the US played a major part in the design of the
ICC framework had strong support from much of Congress.

No, it had, and has, virtually no support in the US, including
both houses or Congress.

The framework is deeply, and irreparably flawed. The "laws"
are ill defined and there are no checks and balances,





"Decades ahead of the US"??

Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
equality is renound throughout the world.

That is ridiculous.

We're not called "welfare states" for nothing. Here is an
easy to read summary if you want to learn something about it:

http://sdd.disp.dk/SDD01/main/isabelle/wefare.html


Regards...

A "welfare state" is hardly something to be proud of. It merely
means that a lot of people who choose not to work are
supported by those who do. In the US, people try to avoid
welfare.


Al Minyard