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"?

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

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

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

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

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

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"?

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

"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

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