Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-30-2005, 05:01 PM   #51
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Jean de Rochefort wrote:
"frenchy" must be double-speak for moral.

AHAH!
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2005, 05:10 PM   #52
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Sorry, my misquoting troll: but the "world" does not = the US. This distinction, as I mentioned earlier (and you chose to ignore, speaking of napping), is important, when determining the legality of initiating aggression. I know, all of these nasty details are so different than your usual sources (such as Limbaugh, O'Really, et al).
Seriously, take another class on comrehension or something. I did not say the world equals the US, I said the US is part of the world, one of many countires that make up the world. A threat to the world means a threat to all that make up the world.

Are you just playing stupid to try to get on my nerves ?

Quote:
If you're trying to state that a law is not a law, because the UN was lax in the past (and ergo, the law is unimportant): imagine me, sitting here, laughing myself silly.

I suppose that we can sweep aside all of those nasty charges of breech by Hussein in the '90's, then, right? After all: these laws were contravened, plenty of times.
Wake up and smell the world - UN law means nothing to countries when they feel their self-interest threatend, and all your world government, star-trek induced fantasies mean nothing.

Quote:
No, we get 'em from the IWW. They beam their orders into our receiving units, cleverly disguised as backpacks.
Now see how stupid it is to make these comments and accuse someone else of the same thing ?

Quote:
Really, you should read the rest of the source, before you fire off an answer. Complete comprehension of a source makes the debater appear more, ahem: "informed."

And, it all depends on how you define "is." See? Jean was right: morality goes out the window, when your guy is on the hotseat.
.

Uh, no. Associating with a group does not mean involved with a groups particular activity. You may have associated with a neighbor who turned out to be a bank robber, or even let him stay in your house a few days, but does that mean you participated in the robbery.

Please go back to that comprehension class. There is a new one starting for 1st graders at your local school next monday. I'll even pay for it....

Quote:
Au contraire, Mssr: I think that you do.
Ouch ! You told me !!!!

Last edited by Hogan : 06-30-2005 at 05:13 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2005, 06:47 PM   #53
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
Seriously, take another class on comrehension or something. I did not say the world equals the US, I said the US is part of the world, one of many countires that make up the world. A threat to the world means a threat to all that make up the world.

Are you just playing stupid to try to get on my nerves ?
Nope, just trying to get myself renamed "Dances With Trolls." But, it's beginning to get tedious.

Lemme type real slow, k, John?

1. The only time a nation--a UN signatory nation--can declare legal hostile action against another is when it is threatened with imminent attack, by another nation.

2. And so, when I said that W was one of the first to declare that Iraq was a threat to the US, I meant it. Clinton's assertion that Hussein was a threat to the "world" (as nonsensical as that statement is) is a different kettle of fish.

3. Can we please move on? The tedium of your argument is making me worry I'll be called "Dirges with Trolls," instead.

Quote:
Wake up and smell the world - UN law means nothing to countries when they feel their self-interest threatend, and all your world government, star-trek induced fantasies mean nothing.
I'm sorry, I must be dreaming. Yes, that's it: you're right. Wow.

I must be dreaming because when I went to sleep: the waking world was governed by laws. Certainly, I seem to recall that the waking world's governing bodies did not use such lame notions as "oh well: laws mean nothing to countries; and so we can do what we want." In the waking world, even W and his lawyers are concerned about being charged for breaking laws.

Quote:
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Well, I think we need justice in this world. We need to make sure that people who commit horrendous crimes are held accountable, and we need to have social justice, as well. But I got to Congress in 1973 when nobody had any clue that Richard Nixon would ever be held accountable in connection with the Watergate break in that took place just before that. And then it was because of a lot of independent and relentless prosecutors and judges and, most important, press, and in the end, the American public, that a President of the United States was held accountable for something that nobody could have dreamed months before that he would be held accountable for, and his top administration officials.

And it seems to me that with the terrible scandal, Abu Ghraib, that we need -- we can't, as they tried in Watergate to do, cut off the investigation at the small fry, at the lowest level. You have to look, and the international law precedence and American law requires it, you look up the chain of command. What I discovered by accident was that -- this is not a concern that I have alone -- President Bush's White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, himself, who is now the Attorney General of the United States, wrote a memo in January 2002 to President Bush saying one of the reasons we need to opt out of the Geneva Conventions wasn't just because they didn't like the Geneva Conventions because they don't like treaties, but he said, we have to worry about prosecutions under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996. That, it turns out, is a federal statute that applies to any U.S. national, military or civilian, high or low, who violates the Geneva Conventions in certain ways. In other words, who engages in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment. And it's not just those who engage in it, it's those who order it or those who, knowing about it, fail to take steps to stop it. That means higher-ups.

JUAN GONZALEZ: This 1996 law is not very well known.

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: No. It's totally obscure. I only found out about it because Alberto Gonzales was worried about prosecutions of high level officials under it.

JUAN GONZALEZ: What brought this law about? In other words, was Congress reacting to --

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: What happened was in the 1990s, during the, I guess it was the Clinton administration at that time, Congress decided that it wanted to adopt laws to take it into full compliance with its obligations under an international torture statute and an international torture treaty and the Geneva Conventions. And so, it passed two laws. One is a statute making it a U.S. crime to engage in torture. It was passed two years before the 1996 law, and then you have the War Crimes Act of 1996.

And basically, what it does, it makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions a federal crime. Got it? Just like kidnapping or interstate burglary or child pornography, it is a federal crime. And the other thing, that's interesting is that it carries the death penalty. If death results from torture or inhuman treatment, then there is a death penalty, and that means there's no statute of limitations. That means that if any high level official violates the War Crimes Act, and somebody died, they can be prosecuted. They are subject to prosecution for the rest of their lives.
Sooo...I'm guessing that, maybe I'm not the one napping, since my reality-tests prove that yes, corrupt US officials (and their atty's) ARE concerned.

Nappy time over, John.


Quote:
Now see how stupid it is to make these comments and accuse someone else of the same thing ?
It's called "humor:" perhaps you've heard of it?

Quote:
Uh, no. Associating with a group does not mean involved with a groups particular activity. You may have associated with a neighbor who turned out to be a bank robber, or even let him stay in your house a few days, but does that mean you participated in the robbery.

Please go back to that comprehension class. There is a new one starting for 1st graders at your local school next monday. I'll even pay for it....
Uhh, right. Bush mentions 9-11 and Hussein in the same breath, over and over: a majority of ppl who voted for Bush still think that there's a connection, and you brush this off as...an association?

Well, John: in honour of your desire for my increased education, allow me to edify you, in turn:

Quote:
65 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction.

0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses.

73 Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses.

83 Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses.

$1m Estimated value of a painting the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, received from Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States and Bush family friend.

0 Number of times Bush mentioned Saudi Arabia in his three State of the Union addresses.

1,700 Percentage increase between 2001 and 2002 of Saudi Arabian spending on public relations in the United States.

79 Percentage of the 11 September hijackers who came from Saudi Arabia.

3 Number of 11 September hijackers whose entry visas came through special US-Saudi "Visa Express" programme.

2.5 Number of hours after Rumsfeld learnt that Osama bin Laden was a suspect in the 11 September attacks that he brought up reasons to "hit" Iraq.

237 Minimum number of misleading statements on Iraq made by top Bush administration officials between 2002 and January 2004, according to the California Representative Henry Waxman.

10m Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets on 21 February 2003, in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the largest simultaneous protest in world history.

$2bn Estimated monthly cost of US military presence in Iraq projected by the White House in April 2003.

$4bn Actual monthly cost of the US military presence in Iraq according to Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld in 2004.

$15m Amount of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq.

$80,000 Amount an Iraqi firm spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from starting it.

85 Percentage of Americans who can't Name the Chief Justice of the United States.

69 Percentage of Americans who believed the White House's claims in September 2003 that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 11 September attacks.

34 Percentage of Americans who believed in June 2003 that Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" had been found.

22 Percentage of Americans who believed in May 2003 that Saddam had used his WMDs on US forces.

85 Percentage of American young adults who cannot find Afghanistan, Iraq, or Israel on a map.

30 Percentage of American young adults who cannot find the Pacific Ocean on a map.
Quote:
Ouch ! You told me !!!!
Yeah, I guess I did. No thanks necessary. But, still:

Quote:
90 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 26 September 2001.

67 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 26 September 2002.

54 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 30 September, 2003.

50 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 15 October 2003.

49 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president in May 2004.
43 % of ppl who believe that Bush should be impeached, if he lied about Iraq (which, if you look at the Downing St Memo: any objective observer could see the obvious)

99.3 Chance of John protesting W's innocence, even armed with photo's, signed confessions and witness testimonies

exceedingly good Chance of John interpreting the last statistic as some sort of insult

Last edited by Neil Mick : 06-30-2005 at 07:01 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2005, 09:35 PM   #54
makuchg
 
makuchg's Avatar
Dojo: FL Aikido Center
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 84
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Neil, Neil, Neil (shaking head and finger in a scolding manner),

Now you're not going to get an "A" on the "plays well with others" section of your report card.

Gregory Makuch
Wandering Ronin
Spring Hill, FL
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2005, 09:47 PM   #55
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Gregory Makuch wrote:
Neil, Neil, Neil (shaking head and finger in a scolding manner),

Now you're not going to get an "A" on the "plays well with others" section of your report card.
aaaawwww....please? Can't I just have a little "a?"
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2005, 08:17 AM   #56
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Nope, just trying to get myself renamed "Dances With Trolls." But, it's beginning to get tedious.

Lemme type real slow, k, John?

1. The only time a nation--a UN signatory nation--can declare legal hostile action against another is when it is threatened with imminent attack, by another nation.

2. And so, when I said that W was one of the first to declare that Iraq was a threat to the US, I meant it. Clinton's assertion that Hussein was a threat to the "world" (as nonsensical as that statement is) is a different kettle of fish.

3. Can we please move on? The tedium of your argument is making me worry I'll be called "Dirges with Trolls," instead.
Do you really think Clinton didn't mean the US when he attacked ? That he attacked because he thought Iraq was threatening everyone else but us ? That he didn't think Iraq wasn't a threat to the US ? Please, even half-wits don't believe that.

You think the only time a nation can declare war if it is threatened with "imminent" attack ? Guess who gets to decide what THAT means... that's right, the nation, not the UN. UN means NOTHING when a country needs to defend itself, and the time you accept that will mean you will have less stress in your life. If you want to live in a world where corrupt, faceless idiots decide for you what's best for you and your own country, move to Europe.

And Neil, get off the meds, dude. Your left-wing, paranoid, biased, unsubstantiated, anti-american theories will hurt you in the long run; when you are on your death bed, you will realize that all your time spent on this earth was a waste, and all your spouting on this site resulted in zilch.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2005, 04:31 AM   #57
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
Do you really think Clinton didn't mean the US when he attacked ? That he attacked because he thought Iraq was threatening everyone else but us ? That he didn't think Iraq wasn't a threat to the US ? Please, even half-wits don't believe that.
Oh, Johnny, Johnny, Johnny.... I fear that I'd better get used to being called "Dirges..."

What part of "tedious" did you miss, when I discussed this element of the discussion? Let go, John: it's small potatoes.

It's getting down to semantics, and I really hate debating semantics, believe it or not. But, very briefly: it's a semantic issue, in any case. If you honestly belive that Clinton/George HW Bush/George W Bush ever thought Hussein a threat to the US, EVER: then I have some real estate for you, that might interest you. Only had a few dU tests on it...nothing to fear...

So, with this understanding made clear: it's obvious that Iraq was a great punching bag for the last 3 President's to take swings at, whenever the polls started to dip.

Threats to the US? Please.

Quote:
You think the only time a nation can declare war if it is threatened with "imminent" attack ?
I don't think this: I know this. This is called "International Law:" mayhap you've run across this term, in your travels? I know, I know: international law, takes a backseat for you, when it comes to "US Foreign Interests" (read: multi-national corporate interests, pulling on the reins of their paid water-boy).

Quote:
uess who gets to decide what THAT means... that's right, the nation, not the UN. UN means NOTHING when a country needs to defend itself, and the time you accept that will mean you will have less stress in your life.
The UN certainly means less, when the US decides that it's worthless; and defies international law.

Quote:
want to live in a world where corrupt, faceless idiots decide for you what's best for you and your own country, move to Europe.
You mean, as opposed to the corrupt, faceless idiots that decide what's best for me and my country, right here in the US?

Quote:
And John, get off the meds, dude.
And John: get off the personal attacks, dude.

And, now: for a lovely rhetorical, double-spin diatribe by his Hoginess, himself....

he steps up to the board....


Quote:
Your left-wing,
(true enough, guilty as charged)

Quote:
paranoid,
Huh?



He launches off the board...a bold move! He spins,,,,woah! DOUBLE GAINER!! The crowd goes WILD!!

Quote:
biased, unsubstantiated,
Sure. I'll go with biased.

But insubstantiated? OK, now that hurt. Sniff.

So, let's just "substantiate," once and for all, OK?

The Downing Street Memo
Dated: July 23, 2002

Quote:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
Quote:
We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force"
- George W. Bush,
Radio Address Mar. 8, 2003

"I think that that presumes there's some kind of imminent war plan. As I said, I have no timetable."

- George W. Bush,
Aug. 10, 2002 while golfing
Is that substantial enough?

Quote:
anti-american


Quote:
theories will hurt you in the long run;
Nah, my theories never hurt me.

Quote:
when you are on your death bed, you will realize that all your time spent on this earth was a waste, and all your spouting on this site resulted in zilch.

Gosh, Conservatives can now see into the future, as well as read minds!! Where do I sign up, to get these cool super-abilities!!!

If I ever am unfortunate enough to expire on a bed, I would hope, in my dying moments: to think that I fought a good fight against oppression, and for freedom of speech, civil liberties and environmental justice.

But, your critique is silly, and already misproven. I have accomplished a lot, using the internet, and your implication that I am trying to "gain" something by expressing my opinion here, is also false.

This is your biggest flaw, you know. You, and a lot of other Conservative, NeoLiberal cheerleading post'ers, here and elsewhere. You think that just because I like to express my opinions here, that I have am on some sort of political evangalestics "mission."

There are not enough smiley's allowed here to convey my response, but here you go...

Last edited by Neil Mick : 07-02-2005 at 04:44 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2005, 08:46 AM   #58
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Oh, Johnny, Johnny, Johnny.... I fear that I'd better get used to being called "Dirges..."

What part of "tedious" did you miss, when I discussed this element of the discussion? Let go, John: it's small potatoes.

It's getting down to semantics, and I really hate debating semantics, believe it or not. But, very briefly: it's a semantic issue, in any case. If you honestly belive that Clinton/George HW Bush/George W Bush ever thought Hussein a threat to the US, EVER: then I have some real estate for you, that might interest you. Only had a few dU tests on it...nothing to fear...

So, with this understanding made clear: it's obvious that Iraq was a great punching bag for the last 3 President's to take swings at, whenever the polls started to dip.

Threats to the US? Please.



I don't think this: I know this. This is called "International Law:" mayhap you've run across this term, in your travels? I know, I know: international law, takes a backseat for you, when it comes to "US Foreign Interests" (read: multi-national corporate interests, pulling on the reins of their paid water-boy).



The UN certainly means less, when the US decides that it's worthless; and defies international law.



You mean, as opposed to the corrupt, faceless idiots that decide what's best for me and my country, right here in the US?



And John: get off the personal attacks, dude.

And, now: for a lovely rhetorical, double-spin diatribe by his Hoginess, himself....

he steps up to the board....




(true enough, guilty as charged)



Huh?



He launches off the board...a bold move! He spins,,,,woah! DOUBLE GAINER!! The crowd goes WILD!!



Sure. I'll go with biased.

But insubstantiated? OK, now that hurt. Sniff.

So, let's just "substantiate," once and for all, OK?

The Downing Street Memo
Dated: July 23, 2002





Is that substantial enough?







Nah, my theories never hurt me.




Gosh, Conservatives can now see into the future, as well as read minds!! Where do I sign up, to get these cool super-abilities!!!

If I ever am unfortunate enough to expire on a bed, I would hope, in my dying moments: to think that I fought a good fight against oppression, and for freedom of speech, civil liberties and environmental justice.

But, your critique is silly, and already misproven. I have accomplished a lot, using the internet, and your implication that I am trying to "gain" something by expressing my opinion here, is also false.

This is your biggest flaw, you know. You, and a lot of other Conservative, NeoLiberal cheerleading post'ers, here and elsewhere. You think that just because I like to express my opinions here, that I have am on some sort of political evangalestics "mission."

There are not enough smiley's allowed here to convey my response, but here you go...

Just trying to help you, Neil. Really....

International law means nothing to a country when it feels it
is threatened. Bush, Clinton, Bush the Elder, most of the UN and the area, all thought Iraq was a threat, and certainly his own people. Accept that... you seem to be stuck in the denial phase of acceptance, maybe even anger. C'mon, you have bargaining, depression and acceptance to get through and life is short.

Acceptance of these facts will make your life much more enjoyable; repeat after me:
UN sucks ass
UN corrupt
UN laughing stock
War on terror is right
Iraq was threat
Saddam was bad
Dictators are bad
Terrorism is bad
Howard Dean is, in fact, stupid
Neil Mick's rants on aikiweb mean nothing and will change nothing, and exist only to satisfy Neil's ego and his love of talking and "sharing"
Bush gets to appt supreme court justices

C'mon, you can do it.....
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2005, 10:39 AM   #59
sutemaker17
 
sutemaker17's Avatar
Dojo: Mokurin Dojo
Location: Louisiana
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 34
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Hogan got me lmao.
J
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2005, 10:32 AM   #60
mj
Location: livingston, scotland
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 715
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
Just trying to help you, Neil. Really....

International law means nothing to a country when it feels it
is threatened. ..
Like when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

John I think what you are saying is that your country doesn't need to obey international law.

Do you know what that sounds like when you try to convince people?

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2005, 03:40 PM   #61
Adam Alexander
Dojo: none currently
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 499
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Hey, did anyone notice how Bush was doing AWFUL before 9/11 and then he used the patriotic environment for his gain?

That doesn't sound moral to me.

Here's something I read recently...

First Bush: "Read my lips..."
Clinton: "I did not have sexual..."
Bush: "I'm going to bring honor back..."

Intersting.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2005, 07:40 PM   #62
sutemaker17
 
sutemaker17's Avatar
Dojo: Mokurin Dojo
Location: Louisiana
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 34
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Hey guys,
Could someone please explain where international law comes from. I have an idea but I'm not sure I fully understand it.

Secondly, I would like to add that I was also taught that Article VI of the U.S. constitution titled "The United States" dealt specifically with the relationship between the states themselves and between the the states and the federal government under the new constitution. Therefore, 'and all Treaties made' as it is used here refers to treaties between the states themselves (which BTW was expressly forbidden) and the states and federal government. In all other references concerning other countrys and alliances, it appears to me that the distinction was made by using the word "foreign". I could be wrong...

Jason
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2005, 08:17 PM   #63
aikigirl10
Dojo: Aikido of Ashland
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 395
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Where exactly is the aikido in all of this???
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2005, 09:25 PM   #64
makuchg
 
makuchg's Avatar
Dojo: FL Aikido Center
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 84
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Paige this is the open forum where members are free to discuss any issue they feel like. There is no technical aikido however every now and again you can see the blending of combatants in full debate (but you have to watch real close)

Gregory Makuch
Wandering Ronin
Spring Hill, FL
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 12:00 PM   #65
mj
Location: livingston, scotland
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 715
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Paige Frazier wrote:
Where exactly is the aikido in all of this???
This is open discussion mate.

Non-Aikido related topics.

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 12:56 PM   #66
aikigirl10
Dojo: Aikido of Ashland
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 395
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

oooh ok sorry
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2005, 07:24 PM   #67
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Mark Johnston wrote:
Like when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

John I think what you are saying is that your country doesn't need to obey international law.

Do you know what that sounds like when you try to convince people?

Sorry, nice try, but Kuwait did not behave the way Iraq behaved towards the US and the world before Iraq invaded. And Uncle Saddamy's reasons for invasion were not security related, but a border dispute. They believed Kuwait to be a part of Iraq.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/ira..._iraq_07.shtml

"Your questions answered
'The author of British Relations with Iraq', Derek Hopwood has been taking questions on his article from readers all over the world. Here is a selection, with his responses.

What is the history behind Iraq's claim to Kuwait?

Matthew - Sweden; Jonathan - USA; Dileepa - New Zealand; Nathan - UK; Bob - USA; Jyrki - Finland

Kuwait owes its importance to its position at the head of the Gulf and to its oil reserves. These advantage led Iraq to claim Kuwait as an integral part of its territory. Iraq's argument is that Kuwait used to be part of the Ottoman province of Basra; since present-day Iraq, as successor to the Ottoman Empire, was created by incorporating Basra along with other provinces, Iraq therefore has a claim on Kuwait, which is really only a part of Basra.
To counter this, Kuwait claims that since the eighteenth century it has been a separate entity ruled by the Arab tribal family of the Al Sabah, which in 1899 signed a treaty with Great Britain to protect it against Ottoman designs. In reality Ottoman Basra had had very little control over Kuwait and the Al Sabah always insisted they were independent. I personally think the Iraqi argument is weak, and rests on a dubious interpretation of that period of imperial history when the Ottomans exercised a very tenuous control over Kuwait."
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2005, 04:38 AM   #68
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Circle Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
Just trying to help you, Neil. Really....

International law means nothing to a country when it feels it
is threatened. Bush, Clinton, Bush the Elder, most of the UN and the area, all thought Iraq was a threat, and certainly his own people. Accept that... you seem to be stuck in the denial phase of acceptance, maybe even anger. C'mon, you have bargaining, depression and acceptance to get through and life is short.

Yes, sir, Big Brother: as you say sir!

Let's break it down, then.

Quote:
International law means nothing to a country when it feels it
is threatened.
And your point, in reference to whether or not the US should uphold int'l law?

(It's like having a cop come by your house to steal. And when you protest, he explains that, well: everyone else is doing it, so (*shrug*) no biggie, right? And, you go before a judge, and the judge explains that this cop is the arbiter of the law, so what's the problem? )


YESSS, Johnny-boy...whether or not a country feels threatened or NOT--there are laws for a reason. When the boys put down their silly toys, there has to be some way to figure out who is responsible, what crimes were committed, give a process and order to the rule of law.

This is what we often call "progress" and "civilization."

And NO, John: merely feeling "afraid" is no legal defence.

Next!

Quote:
Bush, Clinton, Bush the Elder, most of the UN and the area, all thought Iraq was a threat, and certainly his own people.
It all depends on what you define as a "threat."

Quote:
Accept that... you seem to be stuck in the denial phase of acceptance, maybe even anger.
Gosh...yes, you're right....! HOW could I have missed it for so long???

A rather fringe-right, mindreading fortune-teller on the net with oodles of respect for international law, has suddenly seen through me!!!

Stop it, John: yer killin' me.

Quote:
Acceptance of these facts will make your life much more enjoyable; repeat after me:
UN sucks ass
UN corrupt
UN laughing stock
OK...if you think that repeating this after you will help...I mean: will it get me those superpowers of yours? The ability to read the future, and minds, and stuff?

(Or...ahem....more likely...will it make me a ditto-head)

Well...here goes...

UN su,,,no. Sorry. The UN is inefficient, prone to outside meddling, sometimes utterly pointless, a symbol of the failure of international law, at times, but it also is the World Health Organization, and has, at times: even gotten it right.

Quote:
War on terror is right
Um....define "terror"

If you do, call the State Dept, immediately. Last I checked: they had 3 separate definitions for it.

Quote:
Iraq was threat
It depends upon when. In the '80's, Iraq was a threat to Iran. In the '90's, Iraq was a threat to some oil companies.

To the US?

Stop snorting the nyquil.

Quote:
Saddam was bad
Dictators are bad
Terrorism is bad
OK, yes, you have me there. Here we go:

Saddam was bad
Dictators are bad
Terrorism is bad

Quote:
Howard Dean is, in fact, stupid
"Stupid?" Hmm...I dunno about "stupid." I can't even say that about W: honestly, it's a mystery...but I heard that Bush's IQ was hovering around 100...while Dean's, I'm sure: it's well up over 120.

So, no: I can't exactly call him stupid, either.

Is this one of those mind-reading things, again?

Quote:
Neil Mick's rants on aikiweb mean nothing and will change nothing, and exist only to satisfy Neil's ego and his love of talking and "sharing"
Um, see last post.


Quote:
Bush gets to appt supreme court justices

C'mon, you can do it.....
Yeah, I bet you're just foaming at the mouth, waiting for that big wash of Conservative judges who will sweep away Roe v Wade, like it never existed.

And won't that be fine? Back to the good old days of back-alley abortions and runaway teen-mom's. Healthcare is in such a wonderful state of affairs...surely a horde of desperate unwed mother's will improve the state of affairs.

And yes: our glorious war on terror can continue, unabated. Freedom is on the march, and democracy is triumphant. Iraqi women can safely walk the streets, there is more than 3 hours of electricity a day in Baghdad, clean water, adequate medical facilities, proper labor representation, and no US representatives required to sit on each Iraqi gov't'l board. Papers are allowed to print what they want, ppl are not shot at demonstrations. Iraqi's did not lose most of their cultural and archeological heritage, the ground is not littered with dU, and on the whole: all of W's predictions are going according to schedule.

And, won't it be great when Bolton comes into his own? When Mr. Kiss-up-Kick-Down gets into the UN, he can stand up and declare the UN useless; after Bush accuses Iran (note spelling, John...not "Iraq") of mfg'ing WMD.

You and your ilk can get up onto your chairs, cheer "Go USA!" like it's some sort of football game, wave your nylon flags, and watch on TV, as our planes bomb some more innocent ppl to tiny bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2005, 07:38 AM   #69
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
...Yeah, I bet you're just foaming at the mouth, waiting for that big wash of Conservative judges who will sweep away Roe v Wade, like it never existed.

And won't that be fine? Back to the good old days of back-alley abortions and runaway teen-mom's. Healthcare is in such a wonderful state of affairs...surely a horde of desperate unwed mother's will improve the state of affairs.

And yes: our glorious war on terror can continue, unabated. Freedom is on the march, and democracy is triumphant. Iraqi women can safely walk the streets, there is more than 3 hours of electricity a day in Baghdad, clean water, adequate medical facilities, proper labor representation, and no US representatives required to sit on each Iraqi gov't'l board. Papers are allowed to print what they want, ppl are not shot at demonstrations. Iraqi's did not lose most of their cultural and archeological heritage, the ground is not littered with dU, and on the whole: all of W's predictions are going according to schedule.

And, won't it be great when Bolton comes into his own? When Mr. Kiss-up-Kick-Down gets into the UN, he can stand up and declare the UN useless; after Bush accuses Iran (note spelling, John...not "Iraq") of mfg'ing WMD.

You and your ilk can get up onto your chairs, cheer "Go USA!" like it's some sort of football game, wave your nylon flags, and watch on TV, as our planes bomb some more innocent ppl to tiny bits.
My, you're certainly the party pooper aren't you ?

Oh...

Go USA!
Go USA!
Go USA!
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2005, 04:13 PM   #70
Adam Alexander
Dojo: none currently
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 499
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Eh, what's this about Bush railroading some Rep. who had his legs and an arm blown off? Back in 02.

The story I heard doesn't seem so moral.

Isn't that the way...funny how morality goes out the window.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2005, 04:59 PM   #71
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Jean de Rochefort wrote:
Eh, what's this about Bush railroading some Rep. who had his legs and an arm blown off? Back in 02.

The story I heard doesn't seem so moral.

Isn't that the way...funny how morality goes out the window.
Pssss, hey frenchy, have a secret for you....

Ready ?

Are you sure ?

Okay, here it is..... (now, don't tell anyone....)

Negative campaigning has been part of world history since day one!!!!

Amazing, isn't it ?


Here is another one....

Bush didn't invent negative campaigning.


Ready for more ?

Negative campaigning will go on, beyond your death.


Okay.... more ?

You just participated in negative campaigning in your original post!!! Cool, huh?!


(As Neil Mick likes to say.....)
NEXT !
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2005, 05:59 PM   #72
Adam Alexander
Dojo: none currently
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 499
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

But, negativity against a guy who fought for his country and donated a bunch of limbs. Hmm, I guess for me, the American Ideal would stop me from railroading the guy.

But, eh. I'm moral. Bush isn't. That's why he lied about Iraq.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2005, 07:46 PM   #73
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
My, you're certainly the party pooper aren't you ?
Sorry to rain on your cheerleading, for collective punishment. A dose of reality does tend to spoil a party, I admit.

Quote:
Oh...

Go USA!
Go USA!
Go USA!
But hey: thanks for playing to type: I knew I could count on you.

My nom de plume of "Dances with Trolls" is assured. Ahhhh.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 07-05-2005 at 07:51 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2005, 08:57 PM   #74
makuchg
 
makuchg's Avatar
Dojo: FL Aikido Center
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 84
United_States
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Jean de Rochefort wrote:
But, negativity against a guy who fought for his country and donated a bunch of limbs. Hmm, I guess for me, the American Ideal would stop me from railroading the guy.

But, eh. I'm moral. Bush isn't. That's why he lied about Iraq.
Frenchy, I'm with you. As soon as someone donates parts of his body to a cause he gets to speak his mind.

Now for John, please tell me five things that are better in Iraq than before we invaded. Now I'm not talking about things that are "going" to be better, but two and a half years after the cease of hostilities are ACTUALLY better. Good luck.

Neil, the uninformed and blind often follow the same path for the same reason, neither sees the where they are going.

Gregory Makuch
Wandering Ronin
Spring Hill, FL
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2005, 09:30 PM   #75
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: so if Bush violated the law...

Quote:
Gregory Makuch wrote:
Neil, the uninformed and blind often follow the same path for the same reason, neither sees the where they are going.
Actually, this discussion has been most illuminating.
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:46 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate