It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Law Before House to Repeal the UN Act of 1945

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I was? can you point to the statement where I say that we should go in with "guns blazing" into Sudan?


Originally posted by Muaddib

Probably they could if they wanted to,

The quickest and easiest way to change a country is to kill its leader.


Originally posted by devilwasp
Again with the lies?..... It was the then president of Iraq Al Bakr who gave the vice-presidency to Saddam... let's actually read the truth...and not another concocted lie....

Oh "lies" now is it, what about the CIA support he had to get him into power?



Have you learnt something new yet, or are you still going to continue believing that lie that the US put Saddam in power in Iraq?....

deeperpolitics.gnn.tv...
Yes so he didnt get help getting in?





Actually it was the US who first declared that genocide was happening in Sudan, while Annan was still claiming that although there were bad things happening in Sudan, that there was no genocide going on.

Last time I checked the US was a UN member...


i gave a link in my previous response which shows that Russia and China were against the US move to declare genocide is occuring in Sudan, and how the UN commissio in Sudan would not call what is happening in Sudan genocide. Kofi Annan backed what the UN commission said, that although bad things were happening in Sudan, no genocide was occurring.

As I have said before countries act for thier own intrests.


What is happening in Iraq is for many reasons...to depose a military dictator who has killed 10 times as many people killed since the beginning of the war, because he broke the UN sanctions and was acquiring banned wmd technology and had wmd as the evidence suggests, because Islamic extremist groups were freely working in Iraq and Saddam was paying terrorists and was planning on making terrorist attacks on US soil and US interests. Those are three of the reasons why we are there. The reasons why France, Germany, Russia and China did not want war in Iraq is because they were all part of the dirty deals with Iraq in which they were selling weapons technology and banned technology to the Iraqi regime instead of selling what was needed for the riaqi people as was agreed under the UN sanctions.

If you wanted to take him out you could have done so in 1991 with world backing.
The WMD technology info was inacurate at best, why?
Because UN inspectors did not give acurate descriptions.
The iraq war is another thread, lets not stray too far from the path.


Now what is happening in Sudan is that an Islamic extremist country has called two jihads since 1983 and is still ongoing in which 2.4 million people so far are being killed. According to some reports there are 15,000 people being killed in Sudan by govenrment forces and government back Arab militias.

This is going no where except showing anti islamic media...



How exactly is the UN saving any lives in Sudan if already 2.4 million people have been killed, over 400,000 of them ahve been killed since 2003.

Tell me how many more would have been killed, our own troops too, if we had gone in or we had stopped sending food?
Probably thousands more.




I said it is a plan of the UN, and it is true, democrats in the US are exactly trying to do the same thing.

Ok now your just paraniod.



Humm, i guess puting countries like Cuba, China, Lybia, Sudan and Syria in the UN Human rights commission, while taking the US off the list in 2001 is nothing bad.... i mean those countries have excellent human rights records...

As I have said before the UN is a democracy, you can like it or hate it.


I guess the Kofi Annan speaking for most countries in the world, and kissing dictators and assassins butts while proclaiming to the world that we must follow their lead is nothing bad....

Yet again your assumeing , which makes an ass out of me and U.


I guess one of the plans of the UN of having civilians disarmed all over the world is nothing bad either.... hey no dictatorships can ever take root again in the world once all civilians are disarmed...

Firstly if your government wanted to take control it could, face it the civilain forces are no where near ready or ever will be to fight the military. Why?
Because civilians dont own F-22 air superiority fighters.
Or abrhams tanks or Nimitz carriers, they own rifles and expolosives.
Secondly yet again there is no relivence in this, its all opinion.



He speaks for most countries that are members of the UN, except those that would defy them such as the US.

Yet again, opinion.




China and Russia are still communist countries, all press is controlled in Russia by the state and they are going back to their old ways as we have been seeing.

China is described as comunist but cant be.
Right then..


Government type:
federation

www.cia.gov...

There has never been a comunist country.
Period and fact.



China and Russia are using capitalism to stay afloat and revive their regimes, nothing more.

Right then....you believe that cold war propaganda...


There are three democratic countries, France, the U.K, and the U.S.

France most of the time sides with China and Russia, they go as far as making war games with China intended to coerce the taiwanese people into not declaring they are an independent nation.

Uhh right then, the only things they have done is joint naval training ops consisting of..


The Chinese destroyer "Harbin" and the tanker "Hongze Lake" joined the French warships in eight hours of military tactical operations. The Sino-French exercise included offensive helicopter tactics; ship refueling at sea and simulated search-and-rescue missions.

I think your just paraniod..


So, we can see that three countries have the UN grabbed by the balls and are the ones that mostly define what the UN should be doing, this is one of the reasons why the US does not do what the UN wants. Although when they are making decisions they involve all the member countries.

Uhhh riiiiiiight then, take it your ignoring the veto thing then....?
BTW you do relise that russia and china dont side with one another and are not comunist at all right?




I keep reading this but I ahve never seen anyone provide any evidence for this...

Let's actually look at the real evidence and the truth regarding Israel's nuclear weapons.


For reactor design and construction, Israel sought the assistance of France. Nuclear cooperation between the two nations dates back as far as early 1950's, when construction began on France's 40MWt heavy water reactor and a chemical reprocessing plant at Marcoule. France was a natural partner for Israel and both governments saw an independent nuclear option as a means by which they could maintain a degree of autonomy in the bipolar environment of the cold war.

In the fall of 1956, France agreed to provide Israel with an 18 MWt research reactor. However, the onset of the Suez Crisis a few weeks later changed the situation dramatically. Following Egypt's closure of the Suez Canal in July, France and Britain had agreed with Israel that the latter should provoke a war with Egypt to provide the European nations with the pretext to send in their troops as peacekeepers to occupy and reopen the canal zone. In the wake of the Suez Crisis, the Soviet Union made a thinly veiled threat against the three nations. This episode not only enhanced the Israeli view that an independent nuclear capability was needed to prevent reliance on potentially unreliable allies, but also led to a sense of debt among French leaders that they had failed to fulfill commitments made to a partner. French premier Guy Mollet is even quoted as saying privately that France "owed" the bomb to Israel.

On 3 October 1957, France and Israel signed a revised agreement calling for France to build a 24 MWt reactor (although the cooling systems and waste facilities were designed to handle three times that power) and, in protocols that were not committed to paper, a chemical reprocessing plant. This complex was constructed in secret, and outside the IAEA inspection regime, by French and Israeli technicians at Dimona, in the Negev desert under the leadership of Col. Manes Pratt of the IDF Ordinance Corps.

Both the scale of the project and the secrecy involved made the construction of Dimona a massive undertaking. A new intelligence agency, the Office of Science Liasons,(LEKEM) was created to provide security and intelligence for the project. At the height construction, some 1,500 Israelis some French workers were employed building Dimona. To maintain secrecy, French customs officials were told that the largest of the reactor components, such as the reactor tank, were part of a desalinization plant bound for Latin America. In addition, after buying heavy water from Norway on the condition that it not be transferred to a third country, the French Air Force secretly flew as much as four tons of the substance to Israel.

Trouble arose in May 1960, when France began to pressure Israel to make the project public and to submit to international inspections of the site, threatening to withhold the reactor fuel unless they did. President de Gaulle was concerned that the inevitable scandal following any revelations about French assistance with the project, especially the chemical reprocessing plant, would have negative repercussions for France's international position, already on shaky ground because of its war in Algeria.

At a subsequent meeting with Ben-Gurion, de Gaulle offered to sell Israel fighter aircraft in exchange for stopping work on the reprocessing plant, and came away from the meeting convinced that the matter was closed. It was not. Over the next few months, Israel worked out a compromise. France would supply the uranium and components already placed on order and would not insist on international inspections. In return, Israel would assure France that they had no intention of making atomic weapons, would not reprocess any plutonium, and would reveal the existence of the reactor, which would be completed without French assistance. In reality, not much changed - French contractors finished work on the reactor and reprocessing plant, uranium fuel was delivered and the reactor went critical in 1964.

The United States first became aware of Dimona's existence after U-2 overflights in 1958 captured the facility's construction, but it was not identified as a nuclear site until two years later. The complex was variously explained as a textile plant, an agricultural station, and a metallurgical research facility, until David Ben-Gurion stated in December 1960 that Dimona complex was a nuclear research center built for "peaceful purposes."

There followed two decades in which the United States, through a combination of benign neglect, erroneous analysis, and successful Israeli deception, failed to discern first the details of Israel's nuclear program. As early as 8 December 1960, the CIA issued a report outlining Dimona's implications for nuclear proliferation, and the CIA station in Tel Aviv had determined by the mid-1960s that the Israeli nuclear weapons program was an established and irreversible fact.

United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility. The inspectors were able to report that there was no clear scientific research or civilian nuclear power program justifying such a large reactor - circumstantial evidence of the Israeli bomb program - but found no evidence of "weapons related activities" such as the existence of a plutonium reprocessing plant.


Excerpted from.
www.fas.org...

OMG....it was actually FRANCE and not the US who gave Israel it's nuclear program?........

BTW....this reminds me of what a french government official said about "giving the Arab world also nuclear weapons"... I gave a link to that story months ago. i will see if i can dig it up again.


[edit on 19-6-2005 by Muaddib]


Wow, very nice didnt know that ah well, every makes mistakes.
Mind you..


Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.

www.guardian.co.uk...



The United States backs Israel's right to weapons of deterrence

www.foxnews.com...
Democricies of the world arent so inocent after all...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]




posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
i'm sorry chirac and schroeder personally made money off Iraq? you gotta be kidding me. the United States was involved in the oil for food scandal too. What about the outrageous scandal of the US handling of funds, wasnt it $8 billion 'lost'??
the oil for food scandal was $2.2 billion.



Meanwhile, the Coalition Provisional Authority, which we ran, has lost 8.8 billion dollars. By lost, I mean it’s totally unaccounted for. Not only has Congress not "looked into" this $8.8 billion and who might have it now, but it seems that some members are completely unaware that this staggering sum, which was supposed to go toward rebuilding Iraq, is missing. The Sunday morning after the White House Correspondents dinner, I ran into Senator George Allen at a brunch thrown by John McLaughlin and his wife. Allen had never heard of the missing $8.8 billion, or at least that's what he told me. And he's on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Stunned, I went up to Susan Page of USA Today and her husband Carl Lubsdorf of the Dallas Morning News, two veteran Washington political reporters, and told them about Allen’s ignorance of this huge scandal, which has no doubt contributed to hatred for America and the deaths of our troops. There’s less electricity in Iraq now than there was before we invaded Iraq.

Turns out that Page and Lubsdorf had also never heard of the unaccounted-for $8.8 billion. For a moment I thought that maybe I had been imagining things.

Then I spotted my friend Norm Ornstein, scholar from the American Enterprise Institute. "Would you believe it if Norm Ornstein told you about the $8.8 billion?" I asked Susan and Carl.

"Sure."

I brought Norm over, and indeed I had not been imagining things. "It was a huge story," Norm told them.

"Was it in the New York Times?" Carl asked Norm.

"Yes," Norm assured him.

What in God’s name is going on?



Both need to be addressed by objective inquiries, reform is needed, but what i am trying to point out is that there is another agenda here than reform at the UN and this bill proves it. the extreme right want to pull out of the UN and they wont let down until the UN is out of US business. The recent bill which asked for many reforms in the UN by a set date is also another example of this, no one actually thinks that the UN will be able to do these reforms in time, so they'll get their funding cut. These people are insane.

thanks,
drfunk


[edit on 19-6-2005 by drfunk]

[edit on 19-6-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
The quickest and easiest way to change a country is to kill its leader.


So you're advocating assassination of a world or national leader? The US government banned the policy of assassinating political leaders, elected or non-elected, in 1976.


Originally posted by devilwasp
Oh "lies" now is it, what about the CIA support he had to get him into power?


There is no PROVEN fact that the CIA got Saddam into power. None whatsoever. You can spin it out with your opinion from unproven theories. Over the last 30 years in power, Saddam have never openly claimed that the CIA have helped him at all.

Saddam was approached by other foreign intelligence services such as the KGB, MI-6, the French and German intelligences in the 1960s.

Check out the history of Dr. Yevgenni Primakov's relationship with Saddam Hussein going back to early 1960s.
Dr.Primakov and Saddam Hussein, a Political Partnership


Originally posted by devilwasp
China is described as comunist but cant be.


China is controlled by a single party system, the Communist Party. Therefore, it's an authoritarian republic with a mixture of totalitarian regulations and rubber stamp democratic applications.


Originally posted by devilwasp
Government type:
federation
www.cia.gov...

There has never been a comunist country.
Period and fact.


Nice try, but you're describing the today's Russia, not yesterday's Soviet Russia. My God, you are completing ignoring the history of the Soviet Union. I'm really questioning your educational knowledge.



[edit on 6/19/2005 by the_oleneo]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Muaddib, as we say here in ol' Blighty "youre doin my head in"

You obviously have a lot of time on your hands to write the utter dross that you fob off as unequivocal fact. You have more time to spend bickering and abusing people on the internet than I am prepared to spend. You win the verbal diarrhea award


Wow...and all this coming from a "high school physics self described genious"..... who claims that with his high school physics he knows the engineering and physics behind buildings....


Originally posted by subz
Obviously I cannot possibly shed my "unfactual position" so why bother spreading myself thin enough so you can babble on inanely about tangents and self asserting false truths and verbal loops.


Who is actually trying to take the conversation off tangent instead of presenting corroborating eveidence that can withstand scrutiny?.... by what I see above it is not you...


Originally posted by subz
....................
Ok heres where you will call a spade a fork and probably revert to abusive invective. Yep, im going to dare contradict or challenge your zealous opinion.


wow....let me get this straight.... You continue to insult me, use more derogatory comments, and now you are expecting me not to respond to your insults? You are obviously out of your mind......



Originally posted by subz
..............
What would your response be? Would it be "yeah! the rights of their states supercede the rights to protect children with this agreement" or would you, like me, object to the excuse and say that its hogwash. Would you, like me, say that Iran should force their states to stop this worldwide condemned practice?

What say you Muaddib? Is the rights of the states to execute children greater than the protection the International Rights of the Child provide?

And just FYI the Chinese dont even execute children, only the United States and Somalia do this.
.........


First off, you are going off tangent once more...

Second of all, if there are any minors who are sentenced to death is because they have commited henious acts...

I guess according to you it is alright for a 17 year old to kill people?....

In other places such as Iran children are killed for other reasons, not only for commiting murder.... They are killed for lesser reasons, in the US that does not happen.

Once again your anti-US rethoric is sickening....

BTW, here is some new information for you.


Since this story was written, the Supreme Court has ruled 5 to 4 that execution of individuals for crimes committed before the age of 18 constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The March 1, 2005 decision noted both the declining number of states that permit such executions – 19 – and the tendency in those states to impose the penalty only rarely. “Our society views juveniles... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. (The decision and dissenting opinions are available on the Supreme Court web site.)

In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for crimes committed at the age of 15 and under is unconstitutional. Since 2002, mentally retarded defendants have also been ineligible for the death penalty. Now there is a chance that another category of individuals -- those who are 16 and 17 years old at the time of their crimes – could be exempt from execution.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case of Roper v Simmons soon. Simmons was 17 when he and a 15-year-old friend broke into a neighbor’s home in Missouri. They abducted the neighbor, Shirley Crook, bound her with duct tape, and pushed her into the Meramec River where she drowned.


Excerpted from.
www.connectforkids.org...


[edit on 19-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Wow...and all this coming from a "high school physics self described genious"..... who claims that with his high school physics he knows the engineering and physics behind buildings....

Who is actually trying to take the conversation off tangent instead of presenting corroborating eveidence that can withstand scrutiny?.... by what I see above it is not you...

wow....let me get this straight.... You continue to insult me, use more derogatory comments, and now you are expecting me not to respond to your insults? You are obviously out of your mind......

First off, you are going off tangent once more...

Meh, no suprises there. Moving on.


Originally posted by Muaddib
Second of all, if there are any minors who are sentenced to death is because they have commited henious acts...

Hmm so these kids are not old enough to decide if they can drink alcohol but they are responsible enough to have their lives revoked for their decision to kill some one. O....K

Which is it? They are either capable of making, and accountable for, serious decisions i.e. drinking, driving, having sex, voting etc. at these ages or they are not.

Why kill them when there are so many laws that deny them personal decision making due to their age? Where is the consistency?


Originally posted by Muaddib
I guess according to you it is alright for a 17 year old to kill people?....

Your guess is wrong. Where did I say its alright for a 17 year old to kill some one? Please quote me.

If a minor kills some one then they should face reasonable jail time and be psychologically examined and evaluated. If they pose a danger to society then they should remain in jail. If they do not i.e. they killed some one who had been molesting them, then they should be released. Not executed.


Originally posted by Muaddib
In other places such as Iran children are killed for other reasons, not only for commiting murder.... They are killed for lesser reasons, in the US that does not happen.

Proof? Is it state sanctioned?


Originally posted by Muaddib
Once again your anti-US rethoric is sickening....

Meh


Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, here is some new information for you.


Since this story was written, the Supreme Court has ruled 5 to 4 that execution of individuals for crimes committed before the age of 18 constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The March 1, 2005 decision noted both the declining number of states that permit such executions – 19 – and the tendency in those states to impose the penalty only rarely. “Our society views juveniles... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. (The decision and dissenting opinions are available on the Supreme Court web site.)

In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for crimes committed at the age of 15 and under is unconstitutional. Since 2002, mentally retarded defendants have also been ineligible for the death penalty. Now there is a chance that another category of individuals -- those who are 16 and 17 years old at the time of their crimes – could be exempt from execution.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case of Roper v Simmons soon. Simmons was 17 when he and a 15-year-old friend broke into a neighbor’s home in Missouri. They abducted the neighbor, Shirley Crook, bound her with duct tape, and pushed her into the Meramec River where she drowned.


Excerpted from.
www.connectforkids.org...

This is meant to bolster your case how?

It plays squarely into my argument that the United States is dragging its feet with this agreement. Even the supreme court has recognised how wrong it is to execute a minor yet the US government has not outlawed the practice. It has not ratified the International Rights of the Child agreement because of this issue.

So every country in the World, except Somalia and the United States, considers this practice morally wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled it "cruel and unusual punishment" which is against your constitution and still the practice is continuing in 19 American states.

This is ok to you, right? Im not putting words into your mouth here.

[edit on 20/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Subz, Muaddib;

The last time I ran into a site you two were both on you were doing the same thing--having an argument over things that were essentially off the topic. Both of you're comments started on topic but quickly digressed to peripheral issues--please stay on topic. I find reading both of your posts entertaining and informative and hope you will continue making them. This particular topic calls for a subjective opinion right up front, so quit trying to convince one another that your opinion is objectively & morally superior.

[edit on 20-6-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
The last time I ran into a site you two were both on you were doing the same thing--having an argument over things that were essentially off the topic. Both of you're comments started on topic but quickly digressed to peripheral issues--please stay on topic.

They are probably on topic in a fashion. Not rigidly so, granted, but I wouldnt say off topic. If we started talking about car sales in Saudi Arabia now with no direct link to the topic, then that could be classed as off topic. But fair play, your comments are taken onboard (as far as I am concerned) and I am trying to mend my ways.


Originally posted by Astronomer68
I find reading both of your posts entertaining and informative and hope you will continue making them.

Thanks, glad you like them as much as I like posting them
I have some new stratagem for combatting Muaddib on these forums. I hope they dont lessen the entertainment value for you.


Originally posted by Astronomer68
This particular topic calls for a subjective opinion right up front, so quit trying to convince one another that your opinion is objectively & morally superior.

Hmm Ive never claimed to be not biased or objective at all. The opposite infact, I freely admit that im biased and my opinion permeates my posts. Any one that claims counter to that are lying. We, as humans, are incapable of not letting our bias and opinion invade a discussion.

News services are (meant to be) unbiased but they are not discussions. They are stating facts, period. There is no scope for expanding on whether or not they are right or wrong and still be classed as a news service. Thats where ATSNN differs from a news service. "Denying bias", to me, can only apply to the news sources we cite in our posts. Denying bias in our responses is completely ludicrous and unattainable.

Whether I am claiming to be morally more superior to Muaddib is where you have me. I do think Muaddib, as a Republican, is morally bankrupt. He is incapable of feeling compassion for anyone unless it furthers his interests. For example, he only espouses the ongoing disaster in Darfur because he uses it to further his attacks on the UN and Kofi Annan in particular.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Thank you sir. What time is it wherever you are?

I'll grant you that news services are supposed to be stating facts, but nowdays I find that many articles (stories if you will) have become editorialized.

[edit on 20-6-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Isn't funny how people cannot leave America as it was supposed to be: The land of the people. I'm not saying communism, but rather a weaker Federal power allowing for the individual to have their rights. Nowadays both sides get angry is someone thinks a way different than theirs. Why can't we just be happy that we have the right to choose? I look on the news at Iraq and a lot of the insurgents are angry because they feel their views will be overlooked in the new government. I think to myself, couldn't America become like that some day? Why is it that we feel that we only piss off other countries and their citizens and not our own people? A lot of terrorist and extremist groups are not from Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Syria. A lot of them are raised in the good ol US of A. We should focus more on the defense of our rights rather than a foreign war. Isn't the destruction of freedom what we were told the terrorists wanted to achieve? Is our president a terrorist?! NO! he's an american......right.....so was McVey and the UniBomber.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
So you're advocating assassination of a world or national leader? The US government banned the policy of assassinating political leaders, elected or non-elected, in 1976.

No, I'm just pointing out the facts.



There is no PROVEN fact that the CIA got Saddam into power. None whatsoever. You can spin it out with your opinion from unproven theories. Over the last 30 years in power, Saddam have never openly claimed that the CIA have helped him at all.

There is no proven fact that he DIDNT get help.
Yeah like that would help him.


Saddam was approached by other foreign intelligence services such as the KGB, MI-6, the French and German intelligences in the 1960s.

Along with the CIA, it was with the help of both US and UK intel services that he got in.


Check out the history of Dr. Yevgenni Primakov's relationship with Saddam Hussein going back to early 1960s.

Read the link I gave...




China is controlled by a single party system, the Communist Party. Therefore, it's an authoritarian republic with a mixture of totalitarian regulations and rubber stamp democratic applications.

Yes but it is not a comunist country, the very saying comunist country is incorect.



Nice try, but you're describing the today's Russia, not yesterday's Soviet Russia. My God, you are completing ignoring the history of the Soviet Union. I'm really questioning your educational knowledge.

[edit on 6/19/2005 by the_oleneo]

So what, we are talking about the security council now, not in 1960's.
The soveit union was a dictatorship, not comunist.
I question your understanding of comunism, but I will not lower your level and respond with personel insults.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Thank you sir. What time is it wherever you are?

It was 12:26 here when you posted that. Im living in England and living in GMT+0.


Originally posted by Astronomer68
I'll grant you that news services are supposed to be stating facts, but nowdays I find that many articles (stories if you will) have become editorialized.

No arguments there. I was only stating what I did because I thought you were saying both of us were claiming not to be biased. I cant speak for Muaddib here but I freely admit I am biased.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
There is no proven fact that he DIDNT get help.
Yeah like that would help him.


Saddam took powers by his sheer ruthlessness, cunning skills and the supports of the Sunni Ba'athist loyalists. He took advantages of those who might otherwise take advantage of him for different reasons. He always stay one step ahead of everyone while consolidating his powers and eliminating his rivals.


Originally posted by devilwasp
Along with the CIA, it was with the help of both US and UK intel services that he got in.


Unproven. People made speculations out of it and wild rumors were the norm in the 1960s and 1970s Persian Gulf countries. Heck, many Arabs believed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be a real proof of a grand conspiracy but never learned that it was an actual forgery/hoax that we all know about. Perhaps the Arabs never heard of the expression, "fall for hook, line and sinker".



Originally posted by devilwasp
Read the link I gave...


It's an opinionated blog.



Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes but it is not a comunist country, the very saying comunist country is incorect.




Go here and be prepared to be overwhelmed: Red China

Scroll down to the part above its glorious flag!
Ultimate Goal: Establishment of a communist social system

According to this: www.cia.gov...

Its government is described as communist.

Feel free to write a letter to the government of China and say that, "You are not supposed to be a Communist!"



Originally posted by devilwasp
The soveit union was a dictatorship, not comunist.
I question your understanding of comunism, but I will not lower your level and respond with personel insults.


You're changing the subject to self-whining and avoiding the issue of your appalling intellectual laziness. Better rescue yourself from any further embarrassment to yourself. Chinese Communists would feel insulted by your insinuation that their country is not communist.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Saddam took powers by his sheer ruthlessness, cunning skills and the supports of the Sunni Ba'athist loyalists. He took advantages of those who might otherwise take advantage of him for different reasons. He always stay one step ahead of everyone while consolidating his powers and eliminating his rivals.

So the CIA/MI6 helping him didnt play anypart?



Unproven. People made speculations out of it and wild rumors were the norm in the 1960s and 1970s Persian Gulf countries. Heck, many Arabs believed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be a real proof of a grand conspiracy but never learned that it was an actual forgery/hoax that we all know about. Perhaps the Arabs never heard of the expression, "fall for hook, line and sinker".


Oh so its now mad rumours and speculation..



It's an opinionated blog.


Everything is opinionated but the sources it used are real.




Go here and be prepared to be overwhelmed: Red China

Scroll down to the part above its glorious flag!
Ultimate Goal: Establishment of a communist social system

According to this: www.cia.gov...

Its government is described as communist.

Feel free to write a letter to the government of China and say that, "You are not supposed to be a Communist!"


The term comunist implies everyone is equal BUT in china there are ruling clases and a miliary hence no one is equal.
The CIA show it as comunist becasue they have been spreading lies about comunism for decades.
The Chinese government use the term comunist to appease the people.



You're changing the subject to self-whining and avoiding the issue of your appalling intellectual laziness. Better rescue yourself from any further embarrassment to yourself. Chinese Communists would feel insulted by your insinuation that their country is not communist.

I am not, you are the one that is going off topic , and where was I talking about the soviet uninion before you mentioned it??
If its intellectual laziness then howcome you dont even understand what it means to be comunist?
Comunism implies everyone is equal, that means no countries, why?
Because one country will always be better than another therefore not equal, comunism implies that money is not to be used.
China and the soviet union used money.
Also they can feel offended all they want, I am simply speaking the truth.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Devilwasp, if you wanted to know the real truth?

No one is truly equal in the planet. Period.

No such system will make (or coerce) everyone equal and no system should tells (or coerce) me or you to be equal with others. No law should expect or compel me to be equal to my fellow citizens on whatever terms or conditions.

If I wanted to be equal with somebody, it would have to be the virtue of being honest with others and expect the same in return. Otherwise, I don't see you or anybody as equal to me.

Why? Because we're different and that fact alone should be the real truth enough.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
I do think Muaddib, as a Republican, is morally bankrupt. He is incapable of feeling compassion for anyone unless it furthers his interests. For example, he only espouses the ongoing disaster in Darfur because he uses it to further his attacks on the UN and Kofi Annan in particular.


That's what you think about me, but you don't know anything about me...and since when is this topic about me?....

Alright, let me play your game then.

You see things your own way, if it puts the US in a better light than your dellusions of what the US has done you do not accept it even if evidence can be provided. You claim to be a pacifist, which you are not, you claim to know better because of your "high school physics" and you can make a better informed decision than anyone else regarding the physics of skyscrappers....and you would swear because you know high school physics that the wtc couldn't have fallen the way it did.

Another member who happens to have a construction degree plus +10 years of construction experience explains the collapse of the WTC and you still claim that you know better than him or anyone else even though you only seem to have a high school degree....

BTW, you want me to have compassion for a 17 year old who went to his next door neighboor, tied her up in a chair and pushed her into a river knowing she would drown....well, tell you what, my compassion goes for the woman whom that kid killed...

You want me to feel compassion also for the underage gang members in south Florida who last year kidnapped a couple, a girl and his boyfriend, who then beat up both of them, raped the girl and shot both of them leaving them for dead....my compassion goes for the girl that was raped and killed, and for her boyfriend who was also killed by the teenagers....

subz, you don't know what compassion is.

You want to be compassionate of 16-17 years old kids who kill, rape, and maim people...because they are not 18 years old?.....

[edit on 20-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
south Florida who last year kidnapped a couple, a girl and his boyfriend, who


This has absolutely nothing to do with this topic, and I refuse to be dragged into it, but I thought I'd point out a little humor in this quote. Read it carefully.


[edit on 20-6-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
And my posts don't get published for news....at least i use correct grammar.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Devilwasp, if you wanted to know the real truth?

Yours or mine?
The truth is always diffrent.


No one is truly equal in the planet. Period.

No such system will make (or coerce) everyone equal and no system should tells (or coerce) me or you to be equal with others. No law should expect or compel me to be equal to my fellow citizens on whatever terms or conditions.

That is why comunism will never work on large scale.


If I wanted to be equal with somebody, it would have to be the virtue of being honest with others and expect the same in return. Otherwise, I don't see you or anybody as equal to me.

Not really, if you lie just as much as he lies then you are equal.


Why? Because we're different and that fact alone should be the real truth enough.

Everyone is diffrent but we are all the same, our brains think similarly and our bodies act siimilarly.
Also there is no "real truth" it is all interpretation and opinion.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Wow, another lost topic amongst the rhetoric. :shk:



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Intrepid,

I agree with you.

The usual suspects trotting out the usual nonsense.

Cheers

BHR




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join