17-03-2003 19:23									#61
	Inflate your Upload Space

[

Individually those two may not be enough to convince a person of a need for action. Combined they are compelling.

[/QUOTE]

Who says so?? I mean: should we agree that every dictator that violates UN resolution must be taken down?
If so: why a democracy should be able to violate them??
Or we just add more and more specifics till we agree only on: Saddam should be taken down??

	17-03-2003 19:26									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm not saying you have to agree with the argument, I am not arguing whether or not we should take him out, I am discussing the debate technique.

You split the argument down, you can not do that and remain with a logical argument.

	17-03-2003 19:29									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Big Crunch Its not just that Saddam is a dictator, its not just that he has defied resolutions, its not just that he has WoMD, its not just that he has previously invaded another country and then defied the ceasefire terms etc... It is all these things combined. You have got to argue the sum of the parts, not the individual parts.

But then we're back at Israel again. WoMD (real, not perceived), repeated invasions, annexations, disrespect for UN, all that.
(Technically not a dictatorship, but there's no doubt the
country houses hundreds of thousands of people born within its preceived borders, barred from civil rights).

What us eurolefties stubbornly, but pretty hopelessly are trying to make some rightwingers to understand is that you can't have double standards in ethics or foreign affairs.

But IF you are upholding double standards, make sure you set the highest standards for yourself, your friends and your allies. Clean out your own house first, before attacking others. (Splinter in the eye and all that)

I remember Halabja. I also remember what newspapers reported the story on main page, and what papers hid them on page 27. The right-wingers failure to to take an ethical stand, instead of an economic/political one, is not forgotten among my Kurdish friends.

Whatever. It's probably pointless to argue.

C.

	17-03-2003 19:41									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by catullus you can't have double standards in ethics or foreign affairs. C.

Exactly. Don't split up if you don't want to, as long as you set a STANDARD.

You can't make the rule so specific ( by adding up) that is applicable only to a single case....

	17-03-2003 20:03									#65
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote:
Originally posted by catullus
you can't have double standards in ethics or foreign affairs.
C. "

Yes you can. Since when couldnt you? I can name a thousand examples in the 20th century where such was the case.




Oh yes. War is coming. I dont think the sky is going to fall like are saying. I think it will be quick, and 80% of the iraqi army will surrendur in the first 72 hours.


UN: UN fails to reach agreement. France threatens veto, Coalition of the willing enacts 1441 as justification.

Baghdad:Fortifications are dug and civilians are fleeing to the kurdish north.

Kuwait: Coalition forces are in there assembly points

	17-03-2003 20:13									#66
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by OliverFA I disagree. We watched the construction of the future of the British and the Spanish.

Very true.

The most interesting message from Aznar and two other EU prime ministers is their support for the Atlantic Charter - meaning a close relationship with the US.

Europe is clearly now divided into two camps, those pro- and those anti-US.

Thank you lefties. Thank you France. You did well.

	17-03-2003 20:15									#67
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by faded glory Yes you can. Since when couldnt you?

No, you can't. If you want to go ahead with the pretense you are the "good guys" you can't.

	17-03-2003 20:15									#68
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by catullus But then we're back at Israel again. WoMD (real, not perceived), repeated invasions, annexations, disrespect for UN, all that. (Technically not a dictatorship, but there's no doubt the country houses hundreds of thousands of people born within its preceived borders, barred from civil rights). What us eurolefties stubbornly, but pretty hopelessly are trying to make some rightwingers to understand is that you can't have double standards in ethics or foreign affairs. But IF you are upholding double standards, make sure you set the highest standards for yourself, your friends and your allies. Clean out your own house first, before attacking others. (Splinter in the eye and all that) I remember Halabja. I also remember what newspapers reported the story on main page, and what papers hid them on page 27. The right-wingers failure to to take an ethical stand, instead of an economic/political one, is not forgotten among my Kurdish friends. Whatever. It's probably pointless to argue. C.

Every time someone says Israel is violating UN resolutions, I simply ask the question: Name one.

Regardless, the US has been actively involved in settling the ME crisis since Kissinger.

	17-03-2003 20:29									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

the three stooges??

	17-03-2003 20:31									#71
	Put an end to popups!

No. 3 men that understand following through.

	17-03-2003 20:33									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Following through can have an unfortuante meaning in the uK

	17-03-2003 20:34									#73
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Every time someone says Israel is violating UN resolutions, I simply ask the question: Name one.

Well for starters there are resolutions; 106, 111, 127, 162, 171, 228, 237, 248, 250, 251, 252, 256, 259, 262, 265, 267, 270, 271, 279, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 317, 332, 337, 347, 425, 427, 444, 446, 450, 452, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 476, 478, 484, 487, 497, 498, 501, 509, 515, 517, 518, 520, 573, 587, 592, 605, 607, 608, 636, 641, 672, 673, 681, 694, 726 and 799.
Of course some of them are obsolete (esp. the Lebanon-related ones) but ones applying to settlements, Jerusalem, deportations, Geneva Convention violations and land grabs stand.

	17-03-2003 20:39									#74
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ned UR, what does this have to do with anything. Why do all you extreme lefties always try to change the subject and attack the US?

So Ned, pointing out that the US has blocked UNSC resolutions in the past is an attack? You are a wee bit too paranoid.

quote: Originally posted by Ned Example: Saddam is a dictator that should be removed: Lefties: The US has supported many a dictator in the past. Example: Saddam has violated X UN resolutions. Lefties: Israel has violated more. Example: Saddam has WoMD and is a threat. Lefties: Israel has nukes and is a threat. Never address the issue. Simply attack the US and Israel.

How are these attacks? These are simply facts.

	17-03-2003 20:41									#75
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger Following through can have an unfortuante meaning in the uK

Since I respect Brits in general, and like you personally, I'm going to just let boundless opportunities pass.

	17-03-2003 20:42									#76
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand Since I respect Brits in general, and like you personally, I'm going to just let boundless opportunities pass.

Thanks, I just wish my little boy would too
Smilies

	17-03-2003 20:42									#77
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Boshko Well for starters there are resolutions; 106, 111, 127, 162, 171, 228, 237, 248, 250, 251, 252, 256, 259, 262, 265, 267, 270, 271, 279, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 317, 332, 337, 347, 425, 427, 444, 446, 450, 452, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 476, 478, 484, 487, 497, 498, 501, 509, 515, 517, 518, 520, 573, 587, 592, 605, 607, 608, 636, 641, 672, 673, 681, 694, 726 and 799. Of course some of them are obsolete (esp. the Lebanon-related ones) but ones applying to settlements, Jerusalem, deportations, Geneva Convention violations and land grabs stand.

Boshko, I thought Ned was only asking a rhetorical question. I can't believe that he thinks Israel hasn't violated a single UN resolution.

	17-03-2003 20:43									#78
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand No. 3 men that understand following through.

Following through isn't always the right thing to do.

For example, after you have threatened to commit suicide.

	17-03-2003 20:54									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Boshko Well for starters there are resolutions; 106, 111, 127, 162, 171, 228, 237, 248, 250, 251, 252, 256, 259, 262, 265, 267, 270, 271, 279, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 317, 332, 337, 347, 425, 427, 444, 446, 450, 452, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 476, 478, 484, 487, 497, 498, 501, 509, 515, 517, 518, 520, 573, 587, 592, 605, 607, 608, 636, 641, 672, 673, 681, 694, 726 and 799. Of course some of them are obsolete (esp. the Lebanon-related ones) but ones applying to settlements, Jerusalem, deportations, Geneva Convention violations and land grabs stand.

I looked up 799. It had to with deportations from the "occuppied" territories. It said that these deportations are in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention.

Personally, I am astounded that the US did not veto this resolution because it assumes that the so-called occuppied territories fall under the 4th Geneva Convention - which by its own terms does not apply to civil wars and the like. The convention applies only to conflicts among signatories states.

As has been pointed out here many times before, Palestine is not Jordan. Gaza is not Egypt. These are both part of Palestine. Jordan and Egypt's own occupation of those territories was "illegal" in the first place. The conflict between the Palestinians and Israel is a civil war.

	17-03-2003 20:54									#80
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ned Come on, MtG, the Democrats are gung on on submitting US foreign policy to the UN.

So your view of "US foreign policy" is that it is nothing more than invasion and regime change of sovereign countries? (the UNSCRs the US claims to be enforcing explicitly acknowledge Iraqi sovereignty, as the relevant UNSCRs acknowledged Kuwaiti sovereignty) Last I heard, even in this administration, it's a bit more than that. Or are you saying we ask permission of the UN for every ambassadorial posting, every bilateral trade agreement, and every other act of any kind between the US and any other country?

quote: But now that the French have show us their cards, I can hardly imagine anyone making a case to the America people that we have to get UN approval in the future because we all know that France will intentionally obstruct US policy.

Oh, yes, they said they'd use their veto power (for the second time ever) if we asked for blanket permission to invade another country. Yes, those obstructionist bastards, out to thwart everything we do.

quote: During the cold war, no one, Democrat or Republican, ever argued that we would have to get critical decisions approved by the SC knowing that all that would mean would be a Russian and probably a Chinese veto. No, we knew we had to act through NATO or other alliances.

And during the cold war, we and the Soviets and both our proxies, er, um, allies engaged in literally thousands of violations of international law. And how many of those actions, on either side, amounted to an invasion and forced regime change, without the pretext of "foreign aid" to a puppet government with a bilateral treaty?

quote: Now that France has revealed her true anti-American intentions, we cannot go to the UN SC for anything. France will block us.

Bullshit. However, it's just the excuse the right is looking for to scrap the UN and play sole-superpower politics. Either the UN is a rubber stamp depository for the Wolfowitz doctrine, or **** 'em, they're anti-American.

quote: The Democrats must know this. So, what are they saying about the UN? I have heard nary a word from any Democrat in the last few weeks.

The Democrats know this is the ideological posturing of the Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz bunch.

	17-03-2003 20:55									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: I looked up 799. It had to with deportations from the "occuppied" territories. It said that these deportations are in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. Personally, I am astounded that the US did not veto this resolution because it assumes that the so-called occuppied territories fall under the 4th Geneva Convention - which by its own terms does not apply to civil wars and the like. The convention applies only to conflicts among signatories states. As has been pointed out here many times before, Palestine is not Jordan. Gaza is not Egypt. These are both part of Palestine. Jordan and Egypt's own occupation of those territories was "illegal" in the first place. The conflict between the Palestinians and Israel is a civil war.

If it's a civil war, then somebody ought to tell Israel that Palestinians are Israeli citizens.

	17-03-2003 20:57									#82
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I just heard on the radio they have given up on a UN resolution. Next stop war.

	17-03-2003 20:58									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Following through isn't always the right thing to do. For example, after you have threatened to commit suicide.

Like Hussein? Exactly.
Glad we could reach an understanding.

	17-03-2003 20:58									#84
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat So your view of "US foreign policy" is that it is nothing more than invasion and regime change of sovereign countries? (the UNSCRs the US claims to be enforcing explicitly acknowledge Iraqi sovereignty, as the relevant UNSCRs acknowledged Kuwaiti sovereignty) Last I heard, even in this administration, it's a bit more than that. Or are you saying we ask permission of the UN for every ambassadorial posting, every bilateral trade agreement, and every other act of any kind between the US and any other country?

When they attack our allies, yes.

	17-03-2003 21:07									#85
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Way to misunderstand MtG's post.

	17-03-2003 21:08									#86
	Remove this text

MtG, You might recall that we declared war on Germany in 1917 without UN approval. We embargoed Japan - an act of war - without UN approval. We enacted Lend Lease and gave war materials to Britain and the USSR. Our destroyers were in active combat in 1941 in the Atlantic. All this without the UN.

To some extent, MacArthur came to the aid of SK on his own initiative, prior to a UN resolution. Had he had not been fired by that appeaser Truman, there would be no North Korea today.

Bush I acted in defense of Kuwait and Saudi Arbia before the SC issued a resolution.

Clinton acted in Kosovo withot a UN resolution.

The list goes on. The US, IMHO, can do quite well without the UN. It would be nice if the UN would be there with us when we are fighting aggression and genocide, but we have France to block us.

France! Twice a recipient of American aid in two World Wars. What an ingrate!

	17-03-2003 21:10									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ned MtG, You might recall that we declared war on Germany in 1917 without UN approval. We embargoed Japan - an act of war - without UN approval. We enacted Lend Lease and gave war materials to Britain and the USSR. Our destroyers were in active combat in 1941 in the Atlantic. All this without the UN.

Not surprising as there was no UN at the time.

	17-03-2003 21:11									#88
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand Like Hussein? Exactly. Glad we could reach an understanding.

Didn't you just say that only GWB, his lackey Blair, and some random lapdog are the only ones who are capable of following through?

	17-03-2003 21:11									#89
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Frogger quote: I looked up 799. It had to with deportations from the "occuppied" territories. It said that these deportations are in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. Personally, I am astounded that the US did not veto this resolution because it assumes that the so-called occuppied territories fall under the 4th Geneva Convention - which by its own terms does not apply to civil wars and the like. The convention applies only to conflicts among signatories states. As has been pointed out here many times before, Palestine is not Jordan. Gaza is not Egypt. These are both part of Palestine. Jordan and Egypt's own occupation of those territories was "illegal" in the first place. The conflict between the Palestinians and Israel is a civil war. If it's a civil war, then somebody ought to tell Israel that Palestinians are Israeli citizens.

You know its history. It was once one country - a mandate - run by the Brits under League of Nations and then UN authority.

As to Palestinian becoming Israeli citizens - this is a solution I think will work. However, both parties do not want it.

	17-03-2003 21:11									#90
	Full PM-box? Change here!

And given that the US was not even a member of the LoN.