|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 11/14/2001 : 05:15:16 [Permalink]
|
As promised, here is some equally believable crap.
http://www.drclark.net/
quote:
For any of you, that might still be curious as to Norm Chomsky's relevance...
The Chomsky Menace
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 04:29:04 [Permalink]
|
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11930
Tough Love
Michelle Chihara, AlterNet
November 19, 2001
I'm a patriot -- always have been, always will be. My patriotism isn't new, and it isn't nice. But it's deep. It doesn't translate easily into bumper stickers.
That doesn't diminish its strength.
I inherited my love of country from my parents, particularly from my father. He was born in this country, the son of a Japanese immigrant, in 1932.
Following President Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 in 1942, he and his entire family were placed in an internment camp in inidoka, Idaho. He was shipped there at age 10. He left two and a half years later, a year before the war ended.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 07:11:02 [Permalink]
|
'So the ``New War on Terrorism'' is, in fact, led by the only state in the world that has been condemned by the International
Court of Justice for international terrorism and has vetoed a resolution calling on states to observe international law, which is
perhaps appropriate.'http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1824/nc.htm
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 07:55:12 [Permalink]
|
So, what's your point, Gorgo? You would be hard pressed to find ANY country whose history is lily-white and pure. I'm sure if the International Court set their minds to it, they could dig up dirt on just about any country on just about anything.
The condemnation you refer to was during the Reagan years. Let's fast-forward the guilt trip, shall we?
(:raig |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 10:11:13 [Permalink]
|
What's your point? That terrorism is okay because everyone does it?
My point is that if you want others to live by certain standards, it's a good idea to start with yourself. That's not just twenty years ago, that's today, with the U.S.'s illegal attacks of Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan.
quote:
So, what's your point, Gorgo? You would be hard pressed to find ANY country whose history is lily-white and pure. I'm sure if the International Court set their minds to it, they could dig up dirt on just about any country on just about anything.
The condemnation you refer to was during the Reagan years. Let's fast-forward the guilt trip, shall we?
(:raig
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 10:27:40 [Permalink]
|
Illegal attacks? Sorry Gorgo but in reality they are not illegal. There is no world court that the US belongs to. You keep going on about it but if the US did not submit itself to any international laws then it does not have to follow them. You might as well have some Spanish court mail US citizens traffic tickets for what are infractions in Spain but are perfectly legal here. y the way, who exactly is calling the war in Afghanistan illegal and what exact law is cited. I have not heard of this. Nor have I heard much about the US violating law in Iraq or Sudan? The US Supreme court must be in on this.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 10:44:34 [Permalink]
|
Well, then, you've made my point. If the U.S. is not to be held to any standard, then who else can be? If might makes right, then don't cry to me when someone gets more might than the U.S.
It is part of the UN Charter, that before a country can attack each other, they have to negotiate. There was no attempt at negotiation in any of the below mentioned terrorist attacks.
quote:
Illegal attacks? Sorry Gorgo but in reality they are not illegal. There is no world court that the US belongs to.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 11:51:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is part of the UN Charter, that before a country can attack each other, they have to negotiate. There was no attempt at negotiation in any of the below mentioned terrorist attacks. [Gorgo]
FINAL JEOPARDY - The U.N. resolutions that specifically condemned the U.S. attacks on Iraq, Sudan & Afghanistan. Remember to phrase your answer as a question.
du-dah-du-du...du-dah-du
du-dah-du-da-D-A-A-H..dah-dah-da-da
du-dah-du-du...du-dah-du...
da...da..da..da......da.....da....da..
*BOOM *BOOM*
Going first to Gorgo, your answer please.
(too bad these posts don't have synchronized audio)
(:raig |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 12:03:49 [Permalink]
|
I said that it violated the UN charter, not that there were condemnations of those things. There was a condemnation of the US attack on Panama, do you care about that at all? There are all kinds of condemnations that the US vetoes and ignores, do you care about that? No, because you have a double standard. The US is "Good" and those that don't like its empire are "Evil."
quote:
quote:
It is part of the UN Charter, that before a country can attack each other, they have to negotiate. There was no attempt at negotiation in any of the below mentioned terrorist attacks. [Gorgo]
FINAL JEOPARDY - The U.N. resolutions that specifically condemned the U.S. attacks on Iraq, Sudan & Afghanistan. Remember to phrase your answer as a question.
du-dah-du-du...du-dah-du
du-dah-du-da-D-A-A-H..dah-dah-da-da
du-dah-du-du...du-dah-du...
da...da..da..da......da.....da....da..
*BOOM *BOOM*
Going first to Gorgo, your answer please.
(too bad these posts don't have synchronized audio)
(:raig
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 12:47:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is part of the UN Charter, that before a country can attack each other, they have to negotiate. There was no attempt at negotiation in any of the below mentioned terrorist attacks.
Wrong answer Gorgo! The US set a deadline for Saddam ro leave Iraq. When that deadline passed we made him leave Kuwait. I really have no idea what you're looking for in terms of negotiation when a country is invaded. You either leave or you don't and Saddam didn't leave. Seems simple enough to me.
The US had negotiated with the Taliban for several years over bin Laden but they did not give him up and we had every reason to want him after all the terrorist attacks he had funded. You would have to have lived in a cave for the last few months not to see how tight the Taliban is with bin Laden. They gave up an entire country rather than turn him over. But the negotiations were there. And so your point is what exactly?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 12:53:21 [Permalink]
|
Read the UN charter. It requires negotiation. It did not happen.
quote:
quote:
It is part of the UN Charter, that before a country can attack each other, they have to negotiate. There was no attempt at negotiation in any of the below mentioned terrorist attacks.
Wrong answer Gorgo! The US set a deadline for Saddam ro leave Iraq. When that deadline passed we made him leave Kuwait. I really have no idea what you're looking for in terms of negotiation when a country is invaded. You either leave or you don't and Saddam didn't leave. Seems simple enough to me.
The US had negotiated with the Taliban for several years over bin Laden but they did not give him up and we had every reason to want him after all the terrorist attacks he had funded. You would have to have lived in a cave for the last few months not to see how tight the Taliban is with bin Laden. They gave up an entire country rather than turn him over. But the negotiations were there. And so your point is what exactly?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 13:17:27 [Permalink]
|
Don't know what planet you're from Gorgo but as far as I can tell if one side refuses to negotiate negotiations are extremely difficult. Just what negotiations do you have in mind when one nation invades another. Seems simple to me. Leave or don't leave. Negotiation is not always an option.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 13:31:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Read the UN charter. It requires negotiation. It did not happen.
quote:
quote:
It is part of the UN Charter, that before a country can attack each other, they have to negotiate. There was no attempt at negotiation in any of the below mentioned terrorist attacks.
Wrong answer Gorgo! The US set a deadline for Saddam ro leave Iraq. When that deadline passed we made him leave Kuwait. I really have no idea what you're looking for in terms of negotiation when a country is invaded. You either leave or you don't and Saddam didn't leave. Seems simple enough to me.
The US had negotiated with the Taliban for several years over bin Laden but they did not give him up and we had every reason to want him after all the terrorist attacks he had funded. You would have to have lived in a cave for the last few months not to see how tight the Taliban is with bin Laden. They gave up an entire country rather than turn him over. But the negotiations were there. And so your point is what exactly?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
I seem to remember some pretty strongly worded statements to Iraq during this time. When a member nation flagrantly steps over the boundary of attacking, without that precious negotiation you go on and on about, another nation (or wasn't Kuwait a nation?), those statements of intent serve as negotiation. We gave Iraq ample time to vacate Kuwait. They chose not to. I think the difficulty arises from a different standard of negotiation that you have than what I have and possibly @tomic. As for Afghanistan, @tomic has presented a statement which indicates the presence of negotiations with the Taliban. Therefore, it does not apply to your "US violates UN charter whenever it damn well pleases" arguement. Just because negotiations were unsuccessful or did not happen as long as you like doesn't mean they didn't occur.
You seem to be looking at this as a black and white issue when real life is varying shades of grey.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
