If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Rogue State
The Bush administration has outlined the following
criteria for a "dangerous state": 1. It has or plans to acquire, weapons of mass destruction. 2. It ignores United Nations directives. 3. It unilaterally abrogates international treaties. 4. It invades weaker countries without just cause. 5. It has an unelected government, or one that acquires power by dubious means such as rigged elections. When can we expect "Operation American Freedom"? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
jukita wrote in message news:D_tOa.575
Ah, Troll, weak, weak, weak.... 1. It has or plans to acquire, weapons of mass destruction. The criteria applies not as state above, but to rouge nations that are in material breach of international nuclear non proliferation treaties. Iraq was, US isn't 2. It ignores United Nations directives. Iraq was in violation of virtually every UN directive, America is not and wasn't. Despite 12 years of attempting to work with the Disunited Nations to solve the Iraqi crisis, the US did not violate any UN directives in applying the 'serious consequences' implied in previous resolutions. 3. It unilaterally abrogates international treaties. US abrogated no binding treaty. Voluntery withdrawl is the right of all soverign nations, such as the US could withdraw from the Disunited Nations and let it die, and would violate no international 'law' 4. It invades weaker countries without just cause. 'Just cause' is in the eye of the beholder.... For example the Iragi children released from torture.... 5. It has an unelected government, or one that acquires power by dubious means such as rigged elections. Hmmm, 'dubious' means.... You mean in accordance with duly enacted election law established by legislative action? Or do you mean the unconstitional attempt by the Gore campaign to have judicial fiat overturn the election process? Legislatures make laws, judiciaries shall not. Otherwise you wind up with lifetime appointed 'wise old men' running the country, you know like the Soviet politburo? The Florida courts overstepped their constitutional authority, both Floridan and US. The Supreme court did not 'select' Bush, the forbade the Florida courts from an unconstitutional act. When can we expect "Operation American Freedom"? When ever enough peon's get enough balls (and battleships - you know, naval content) to try it. Now go back to bed, Troll |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
jukita wrote in message .. .
The Bush administration has outlined the following criteria for a "dangerous state": 1. It has or plans to acquire, weapons of mass destruction. The US invented WMDs. 2. It ignores United Nations directives. The US invented, funds, and houses the UN. 3. It unilaterally abrogates international treaties. The are no international treaties unless the US decides there will be international treaties. 4. It invades weaker countries without just cause. All countries on the planet, alone or collectively, are weaker than the US. 5. It has an unelected government, or one that acquires power by dubious means such as rigged elections. The US Supreme Court, duly constituted, and the final arbiter under the US Constitution, made it's order. You don't like it? Get over it. When can we expect "Operation American Freedom"? Don't need it. But Canada, France, and Germany are cruising for big time regime changes and the resulting liberation. Spread Eagle |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Spread
Eagle wrote: Oh, dear, and I really *do* know better than to get into these big, woolly OT threads. But this clown is just too much.... Takes deep breath.... jukita wrote in message .. . The Bush administration has outlined the following criteria for a "dangerous state": 1. It has or plans to acquire, weapons of mass destruction. The US invented WMDs. Hmm. Yes, but. Note that nukes follow a pattern of fear. The US (with more than a little help from the Brits) built the first nuclear weapon *for fear that the Nazis might have got one first.*. The USSR built a nuclear weapon *for fear of the US WMD* The Brits built a nuclear weapon *for fear of the USSR WMD, and not trusting the US to risk its national existence defending the Brits* etc etc etc right down the line. I don't mind admitting that had I been Saddam, I'd have been building a nuke myself, and for good reason. 2. It ignores United Nations directives. The US invented, funds, and houses the UN. Not all on its own, alas. Some of us (re invention) on this side of the Atlantic have to take our share of the blame. And no, you don't "fund" the UN; generally speaking, you are very remiss on your subscription. 3. It unilaterally abrogates international treaties. The are no international treaties unless the US decides there will be international treaties. I'd re-read that, and rephrase it, if I were you. As flatly stated above, that really is the sort of thing that gets the US a bad name. 4. It invades weaker countries without just cause. All countries on the planet, alone or collectively, are weaker than the US. So? Note that this will not necessarily always be the case. See my comment above, re international treaties. You make your country (fortunately, I have a better acquaintance with the US than an encounter with a swaggering oaf on UseNet) sound like the homeland of overweight, pernicious vermin in great need of removal from the face of God's green Earth. You should be ashamed of yourself, and cease to insult by your poisonous flatulence the far, far better people who created your nation and made it great. 5. It has an unelected government, or one that acquires power by dubious means such as rigged elections. The US Supreme Court, duly constituted, and the final arbiter under the US Constitution, made it's order. You don't like it? Get over it. When can we expect "Operation American Freedom"? Don't need it. But Canada, France, and Germany are cruising for big time regime changes and the resulting liberation. Have you even the faintest idea how silly, ignorant, arrogant and frightening that sort of total bull**** sounds to non-Americans? If not, why not? You might like to consider the idea that many ot today's supposed "anti-Americans" did not start off as "anti-Americans." -- "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun My .mac.com address is a spam sink. If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Lothian wrote:
The US invented, funds, and houses the UN. Not all on its own, alas. Some of us (re invention) on this side of the Atlantic have to take our share of the blame. And no, you don't "fund" the UN; generally speaking, you are very remiss on your subscription. Yes, but the US is most blameworthy on the subject. As far as funding goes, the US provides ~22% of regular budget and 27% of peacekeeping. And the dues in arrears were the result of holding back the 3% in dispute when the first number went from 25 to 22%. AFAIK the US never provided less than 22%, which is of course more than any other nation (and far more than anyone besides Japan). I don't believe there are any arrears at this point, other than possibly the perennial ones as the result of budget cycles not being coincident. Contrast that to the list of countries that haven't paid dues in two years on the UN website, and it appears to be not much of an issue. rgds, KTF |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Cecil Turner
wrote: Alan Lothian wrote: The US invented, funds, and houses the UN. Not all on its own, alas. Some of us (re invention) on this side of the Atlantic have to take our share of the blame. And no, you don't "fund" the UN; generally speaking, you are very remiss on your subscription. Yes, but the US is most blameworthy on the subject. As far as funding goes, the US provides ~22% of regular budget and 27% of peacekeeping. And the dues in arrears were the result of holding back the 3% in dispute when the first number went from 25 to 22%. AFAIK the US never provided less than 22%, which is of course more than any other nation (and far more than anyone besides Japan). I don't believe there are any arrears at this point, other than possibly the perennial ones as the result of budget cycles not being coincident. Contrast that to the list of countries that haven't paid dues in two years on the UN website, and it appears to be not much of an issue. This is all pretty well true; if there are nitpicks, I will let other people get on with them. Even in my most euroextreme mode (I know where I left it, I'll find it in a minute) I can't blame the Murrikans for everything. But... (whimpers and squeaks) having just pinned my heart to my sleeve answering some dreadful Gringo troll on an off-topic, flamebait thread, I was looking for just the tiniest bit of support from the other side of the Atlantic. Typical Brit, eh? OK, by UseNet standards I am big and ugly enough to look after myself, but... -- "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun My .mac.com address is a spam sink. If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
get a life
"jukita" wrote in message news The Bush administration has outlined the following criteria for a "dangerous state": 1. It has or plans to acquire, weapons of mass destruction. 2. It ignores United Nations directives. 3. It unilaterally abrogates international treaties. 4. It invades weaker countries without just cause. 5. It has an unelected government, or one that acquires power by dubious means such as rigged elections. When can we expect "Operation American Freedom"? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Lothian wrote:
:Not all on its own, alas. Some of us (re invention) on this side of the :Atlantic have to take our share of the blame. And no, you don't "fund" :the UN; generally speaking, you are very remiss on your subscription. And you are very out of date with this complaint. : Don't need it. But Canada, France, and Germany are cruising for big : time regime changes and the resulting liberation. : :Have you even the faintest idea how silly, ignorant, arrogant and :frightening that sort of total bull**** sounds to non-Americans? If :not, why not? You might like to consider the idea that many ot today's :supposed "anti-Americans" did not start off as "anti-Americans." Uh, he's doing it on purpose, Alan. I'm afraid the fact that you are taking it as if he is serious says much more about your misconceptions about us than about our misconceptions about anything at all. -- "It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point, somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me.... I am the law." -- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Fred J. McCall" wrote: Dave Holford wrote: :Spread Eagle wrote: : : When can we expect "Operation American Freedom"? : : Don't need it. But Canada, France, and Germany are cruising for big : time regime changes and the resulting liberation. : :I guess we should start withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan, Ships :from the Gulf and other folks from AWACS and other command functions so :that they can come back and defend Canada? Do you really want OUR :snipers on the 'other side'? : :Oh yes, and I guess we'd better get our folks off the NORAD battlestaff :as well. : :We ain't got much, be we can use some of it well. I find it amazing how many people are taking this as if it was meant seriously. Small wonder we don't worry too much about what you think; minds already firmly made up, and all that. :And I guess France will have to pull her troops out of the Congo where :they are trying to stop a fight that has already killed 3 million or so. :No one else seems inclined to try and clean up that mess. All 150 or so of them? Go ahead. Last I heard, they're not particularly effective anyway, since numerous rapes of local girls by rebels seem to be happening each and every night right in the area they're deployed in. -- Nice job Fred, Edit out the last paragraph which puts the posting in context and then pretend what's left was the message. You should be able to get work in advertising. Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Lothian wrote:
In article , Fred J. McCall wrote: Uh, he's doing it on purpose, Alan. I'm afraid the fact that you are taking it as if he is serious says much more about your misconceptions about us than about our misconceptions about anything at all. Alas, you are all too correct. Yet again, a foor poolish Scotsman rises to the bait... As a canuck of scots decent I was took as well, but on the otherhand I don't see regime change (here anyway) coming from within for a while. -- Rich Enfield NS Canada |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
State Of Michigan Sales/Use Tax | Rich S. | Home Built | 0 | August 9th 04 04:41 PM |
FA: 10 Watt - Solid State Digital VHF- Transceiver Unicom | OH | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | March 30th 04 02:29 PM |
Solid State Backup AI | Dan Truesdell | Instrument Flight Rules | 20 | January 15th 04 09:53 PM |
Penn State Soaring Club Schreder projects sale. | Wayne Paul | Home Built | 0 | January 6th 04 02:21 AM |
Homebuilts by State | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 14 | October 15th 03 08:30 PM |