NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm offering you an opportunity to do it here - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424981 :)

Thanks for the link though as we all know, its not a treaty and I won't denounce the Senate because of it :D

Most of the known world in 1991. They all approved of the UN Cease-Fire that was subsequently violated by Saddam Hussein and therefore, war became authorized automatically :rolleyes:
Wrong, wrong, wrong!!

Here is another shot (http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul51.html) at YOUR theory about the "ceasefire", from a fellow Republican no less:

Also it is said we are wrong about the act of aggression, there has been an act of aggression against us because Saddam Hussein has shot at our airplanes. The fact that he has missed every single airplane for 12 years, and tens of thousands of sorties have been flown, indicates the strength of our enemy, an impoverished, Third World nation that does not have an air force, anti-aircraft weapons, or a navy.

But the indication is because he shot at us, therefore, it is an act of aggression. However, what is cited as the reason for us flying over the no-fly zone comes from U.N. Resolution 688, which instructs us and all the nations to contribute to humanitarian relief in the Kurdish and the Shiite areas. It says nothing about no-fly zones, and it says nothing about bombing missions over Iraq.

Perhaps if you could provide proof whereby the UN "officially" sanctioned the use of force against Iraq in 2003, then you could quickly win this debate. Oh....thats right......you can't produce the proof, because it doesn't exist. :eek:

Wrong, wrong, wrong!!

Here is another shot (http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul51.html) at YOUR theory about the "ceasefire", from a fellow Republican no less:

Biased website! Next illogical statement?

Perhaps if you could provide proof whereby the UN "officially" sanctioned the use of force against Iraq in 2003, then you could quickly win this debate. Oh....thats right......you can't produce the proof, because it doesn't exist. :eek:

It doesn't have to be authorized by the UN. Once the Cease-fire was violated, it doesn't have to be approved by anyone. Under international Law, and I've said this countless times now, once a cease-fire is violated, the other party can retaliate against the faction that violated the cease-fire. Hussein violated that cease-fire. Your lucky we waited this long to fire back. I"m still waiting on how enforcing 17 UN Resolutions and attacking after Hussein violated the Cease-fire breaks Internationa Law?

Biased website! Next illogical statement?

It doesn't have to be authorized by the UN. Once the Cease-fire was violated, it doesn't have to be approved by anyone. Under international Law, and I've said this countless times now, once a cease-fire is violated, the other party can retaliate against the faction that violated the cease-fire. Hussein violated that cease-fire. Your lucky we waited this long to fire back. I"m still waiting on how enforcing 17 UN Resolutions and attacking after Hussein violated the Cease-fire breaks Internationa Law?
I am going to borrow a quote from another thread, that was directed to you about the same topic:

I can explain it just fine. But I'm wasting my time trying to explain it to you, because you're rationalizing the facts. It's just not worth it to me. I don't believe you are worth my time & effort. But I did give you quite a few chances. Cya, have a nice day.

Now either you really don't understand or you are just being a good Bush "apologist". Probably it is a little bit of both, but it has run its' course and is now just a waste of my time.

I am going to borrow a quote from another thread, that was directed to you about the same topic:



Now either you really don't understand or you are just being a good Bush "apologist". Probably it is a little bit of both, but it has run its' course and is now just a waste of my time.

*yawns*

Can't come up with your own arguements. I am no Bush apologist but I do know for certain that Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions AND a UN Cease-Fire. To me that is unacceptable and I blame the UN for not following through on UN Resolutions. Therefor, the US enforced the Resolutions for them.

Is that simple enough for you brain to comprehend?

Hmm no because we are going after those in our own country. Those that don't go after their own terrorists are guilty of harboring terrorists and deserve to be wacked.
But you weren't. There was no department of Homeland Defense, the FBI was doing nothing serious to stop them, and the US Government apparently refused to be aware of their existence.
That comes to exactly the same thing as accusing the PA that they are not doing enough. How could they?


You are so stupid! Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. Iraq gave tacit support to the attack too. All were defeated and thrown back by Israel. BTW: the arab states asked the Palestinians to move out so they can attack. It was the Arabs, not the Israeli's, that caused the Palestinian Refugee problem.
Please post relevant quotes. I will:
Jordan: independent since 1946, an ex-colony with more internal problems than guns. Didn't have a constitution until 1952, and a stable ruler only from 1953.
Egypt: Independent after WW2, this does count as an independent country, although hardly a powerful enemy.
Syria: Became independent in 1946 after French rule. Still not a stable nation, it's air force wasn't started until 1948.
Iraq: Now finally there is an independent nation. It became a kingdom in 1930. Finally someone you can call an independent nation, older than about 2 years. But as you said, the support was minor.
Lebanon: "Lebanon, alone among the Arab nations bordering Palestine, played no significant part in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War that led to the establishment of Israel. The Lebanese Army deployed four battalions along the border but withdrew them from combat, enabling the Israeli Army to capture a strip of eastern Lebanon in October 1948. The new state of Israel occupied this area until March 23, 1949, when Lebanon signed an armistice. Under the agreement, Lebanon and Israel gave mutual assurances that they would not embark on military offensives against each other and would respect each other's territory. The old Palestine-Lebanon border was accepted as the new "armistice demarcation line" but was not recognized as a legal political or territorial boundary"
From http://www.photius.com/countries/lebanon/national_security/lebanon_national_security_the_1948_arab_israel~9567.html
and the CIA-Factbook.
---
My point is that calling these countries "states" in 1948 is misleading. They were just as unorganised militias as the Israelis had. In fact, Jews had been building weapons stashes for many years and were more heavily armed than the Arabs.
So call the Arabs "Militia" rather than states.


They borders were defined. They were defined by the British Mandate of Palestine which was charged to create 2 states, Israel and Palestine. Israel had their borders and they were violated by the 5 Arab States. Is this not seeking in?
My question is then: Why didn't Ben Gurion declare Israel independent and defined its borders? He explicitly omitted stating where Israel's borders where.
The UN Plan for the place didn't include anyone declaring independence prematurely, and Gurion wasn't gonna sit back and only take little parts of the place, especially without Jerusalem.
And just another bite:
"The April 9 [of 1948] massacre of at least 109 Palestinian civilians at the village of Deir Yassin inflamed public opinion in Arab countries, providing those countries further reason for sending regular troops into the conflict."
http://www.biography.ms/1948_Arab-Israeli_War.html


How the hell is George Washington a terrorist? Now you crossed the line. He is in NO WAY a terrorist. Did George Washington kill Civilians? NOPE! The British did kill civilians however. :rolleyes: Sorry that Israel was defending themselves from agression but under the UN Charter, they have the right to self defense. The Arab states did an act of agression no matter how much you try to spin it.
Well I'll cross it again: A terrorist is a freedom fighter on the other side.
Do you think you have the moral authority to declare one good and the other one evil?
Do you not think that the murder of British officers and non-military personel would be seen as a terrorist act in that time? Do you not think the King or British officers would have called Washington a terrorist?
But your onesidedness in this issue is baffling: "Jews good! Arabs bad!" Who taught you that?


And yet, the Israelis offered up most of what the Palestinians wanted and it got turned down. Give me a break.
Again, please provide me with evidence that the Israelis offered a clear, good peace, with enough provisions to enable Palestine to become a viable Nation.
If I recall, the last time we came anywhere close to that (with Arafat as leader), it was extremist Jews who put an end to that.


Proof of this then please?
Excuse me? You want me to prove the PA is innocent, rather than you proving it is guilty?
That's almost like with the Iraq war. Remember "Innocent until proven guilty"


This statement is Bullshit since its being blasted all over the damn news.
What is being blasted over the evil liberal communist news, my friend? Or is it on FoxNews maybe?
And where is your evidence then? Why do you claim things, yet when I ask for proof, you become evasive?


HAHAHAHA!!! Your in fantasy land dude. Your in fantasy land.
A sound politician like you will certainly then be able to tell me this:
How is the PA going to stop terrorist attacks without a police force, an intelligence service or a military?
The PA can offer to the people a long, arduous road, which in the short term looks only like giving up the struggle. If it is to become a credible alternative to community groups like Hamas in the territories, Israel must treat them with respect, to show this alternative has a future.
Even Israel knows this, yet you refuse to believe it?
If I am in fantasy land, you are in a shoot-em-up computer game. There's an enemy right now! Shoot 'em, shoot 'em all!!!


Aren't some wars on a political nature?
I say pretty much all wars are of a political nature. But you do not understand my question:
If you declare war on vegetarianism, and you kill all vegetarians on this planet, will there not be a new generation of people who refuse to eat meat?

That is the core of the problem. You cannot win a "war on terror" for as long as there is anyone on this world who is not represented fairly and democratically, who is marginalised and excluded, for that long there will always be terrorism.

*SNIP*

Leonstein, you have just misread or did not understand a single word I just said. For get it.

Leonstein, you have just misread or did not understand a single word I just said. For get it.

Now there is a retreat of epic proportions.
I went through everything you said, then tried to argue against it.
You don't seem to make a distinction between self-defence and a campaign of ruining palestinian (and other) lives in retaliation to the actions of a militant few. I do.
Or don't you want to play anymore, is it just that?

Now there is a retreat of epic proportions.
I went through everything you said, then tried to argue against it.
You don't seem to make a distinction between self-defence and a campaign of ruining palestinian (and other) lives in retaliation to the actions of a militant few. I do.
Or don't you want to play anymore, is it just that?

But you didn't even get past point one! I have been following that docterine long before DHS was even established as did the Federal Government of the United States. Israel also follows this rule of thumb too. :rolleyes:

It also explains the current problems. The UN did nothing. They didn't see the Arab States as agressors and they did nothing to deter them when those same Arab States IGNORED UN RESOLUTIONS!!! Go figure that the arab states ignored the UN back then. Just like Syria is doing now and what Iraq was doing too prior to us enforcing them.

The UN Also did nothing in the Pakistani/Indian Conflict either. Pakistan ignored the UN (See a trend yet?) and they fought 3 wars. Something the UN couldn't stop. Oops. There's another war that wasn't prevented. So much for the UN preventing future conflicts.

Right, I hope this is your point one you were referring to.
The first paragraph was addressed in some other posts of mine. According to the UN's plans, there wasn't even going to be a state Israel until some time later, Ben Gurion caused the Arabic outrage with his unilateral declaration.
Syria is not ignoring the UN. It retreated from Lebanon, and is now holding new elections with other political parties as well.
As far as the second is concerned, I am not a specialist in Pakistani/Indian relations, so it would be nice for you to post the exact circumstances of those wars happening, the UN's decisions and who may have vetoed what.
I would suggest though that it takes two to tango.

And I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "DHS" right now.

get a life ppl.

And I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "DHS" right now.

:rolleyes: DHS=Department of Homeland Security

Now there is a retreat of epic proportions.
I went through everything you said, then tried to argue against it.
You don't seem to make a distinction between self-defence and a campaign of ruining palestinian (and other) lives in retaliation to the actions of a militant few. I do.
Or don't you want to play anymore, is it just that?
Just a helper for you.....Corny rarely backs up his points with proof (although he asks for proof all the time), and generally ignores questions, which he has just done to you with a big <snip>. He also tends to be repetetive ad nauseum, and loves using ad hominen attacks.

You are so stupid!

I find it difficult to debate with his infinite wisdom. :rolleyes:

Just a helper for you.....Corny rarely backs up his points with proof (although he asks for proof all the time), and generally ignores questions, which he has just done to you with a big <snip>. He also tends to be repetetive ad nauseum, and loves using ad hominen attacks.



I find it difficult to debate with his infinite wisdom. :rolleyes:

I notice you didn't try to argue the fact that Arab States violated UN Resolutions during the 1st Israeli/Arab war. Conceding that they did?

Just a helper for you.....Corny rarely backs up his points with proof (although he asks for proof all the time), and generally ignores questions, which he has just done to you with a big <snip>. He also tends to be repetetive ad nauseum, and loves using ad hominen attacks.

I find it difficult to debate with his infinite wisdom. :rolleyes:
Then again, you have said similar things about me, so who's playing whom? ;)

Then again, you have said similar things about me, so who's playing whom? ;)
It has been so long since we last danced together, that I can't remember who stepped on whose toes last. :D

It has been so long since we last danced together, that I can't remember who stepped on whose toes last. :D
It was you who stepped on mine, you twit! Why do you think I've been avoiding you? :D

I notice you didn't try to argue the fact that Arab States violated UN Resolutions during the 1st Israeli/Arab war. Conceding that they did?
Three points:

1. This was not an integral part of our discussion.

2. If anyone should be in a conciliatory position, that would be you.

3. The above has zero to do with the "butcher of Baghdad" thread.

It was you who stepped on mine, you twit! Why do you think I've been avoiding you? :D
Thats because you have two "left feet"? Besides, you were always trying to "lead", and I was an unlikely follower. :rolleyes:

Thats because you have two "left feet"? Besides, you were always trying to "lead", and I was an unlikely follower. :rolleyes:
ROFOMAO!! According to you, I have two RIGHT feet! Duh!

You're definitely an "unlikely follower," but if I was trying to lead just blame it on my military background. ;)

ROFOMAO!! According to you, I have two RIGHT feet! Duh!
Yeah, it didn't seem right to accuse you of having two left feet, but that is the expression. I was going to say two "right" feet.

You're definitely an "unlikely follower," but if I was trying to lead just blame it on my military background. ;)
For sure I can blame it on that, seeing as I was raised by a "military" man. :rolleyes:

Three points:

1. This was not an integral part of our discussion.

Nice drop back. We were talking about nations violating UN Resolutions. Now that I proved that Arab States have an annoying history of it and the UN doing nothing about it, you come up with this! You are right though that it doesn't but I did prove it.

2. If anyone should be in a conciliatory position, that would be you.

Sorry but when nations violate the UN Resolutions, it is up to the world to enforce them. Since the world is incapable....

3. The above has zero to do with the "butcher of Baghdad" thread.

Actually it does since we were talking about Hussein violating International Law when he violated those 17 UN Resolutions and that UN Cease-Fire. Thank God for the Coalition of the Willing to take it upon themselves to enforce those resolutions.

...

Sorry but when nations violate the UN Resolutions, it is up to the world to enforce them. Since the world is incapable....



Actually it does since we were talking about Hussein violating International Law when he violated those 17 UN Resolutions and that UN Cease-Fire. Thank God for the Coalition of the Willing to take it upon themselves to enforce those resolutions.

OMG... you're incorrigible. :)

OMG... you're incorrigible. :)

Can't help it.

When I know I'm right, I press it home.

Can't help it.

When I know I'm right, I press it home.

And what do you do when you're wrong? :rolleyes:

And what do you do when you're wrong? :rolleyes:

I admit it but in this case, I know I am not wrong.

And what do you do when you're wrong? :rolleyes:
Which BTW is a majority of the time. :eek:

I refuse to further the debate because the opponent doesn't fully understand the rules of engagement. If anyone went through this whole debate, they would see these words ad nauseum:

"17 UN Resolutions and that UN Cease-Fire"

No proof, just repetitious nonsense. :(

I admit it but in this case, I know I am not wrong.
Knowledge is power... but what about proving your case, quoting the relevant part of international law? The part that permitted 'the coalition of the willing' to effect a regime change, you know...

Knowledge is power... but what about proving your case, quoting the relevant part of international law?

I could say the same about the UN! What has the UN done to uphold International Law? The answer is nothing. The US is enforcing it for them by enforcing the resolutions that were passed by the said organization. That is all I need to know that International Law makes this war legal since we are using past UN Resolutions to justify what we are doing!

I'm still waiting on how enforcing these resolutions constitutes a violation of International law. No one has yet answered that question so I'm going to assume that no one can.

The part that permitted 'the coalition of the willing' to effect a regime change, you know...

What part of Saddam violated Internatinal Law by not complying with UN Resolutions don't you understand? By violating those resolutions, the UN had the obligation to enforce those resolutions under International Law and they didn't. The US and our allies are enforcing International Law for the UN based on those same UN Resolutions. That is your international Law.

[QUOTE=Olantia]Knowledge is power... but what about proving your case, quoting the relevant part of international law?[/quiote]

I could say the same about the UN! What has the UN done to uphold International Law? The answer is nothing. The US is enforcing it for them by enforcing the resolutions that were passed by the said organization. That is all I need to know that International Law makes this war legal since we are using past UN Resolutions to justify what we are doing!

I'm still waiting on how enforcing these resolutions constitutes a violation of International law. No one has yet answered that question so I'm going to assume that no one can.



What part of Saddam violated Internatinal Law by not complying with UN Resolutions don't you understand? By violating those resolutions, the UN had the obligation to enforce those resolutions under International Law and they didn't. The US and our allies are enforcing International Law for the UN based on those same UN Resolutions. That is your international Law.
I'm waiting for a quotation, I'm still waiting...

I'm waiting for a quotation, I'm still waiting...
Don't hold your breath......you will turn blue. :(

Don't hold your breath......you will turn blue. :(
Quite so, I'd better start breathing. I'm already Cambridge blue, and I don't want to turn Oxford blue. :)

[QUOTE=Corneliu]
I'm waiting for a quotation, I'm still waiting...

The UN Olantia. The UN!

You violate a UN Resolution, in effect you violate International Law are subject to the Consequences. Also if you violate a Cease-Fire you violate International Law.

Saddam Hussein violated 17 UN Resolutions and a Cease-Fire. Therefore, he violated 18 acts of International Law are he is subject to the consequences of said violations.

Since he violated a Cease-fire, that is grounds for immediate action against him regardless if its from the UN or not. Therefore, by this very violation of International Law, he has brought down his own government. He brought down his own government when he violated those 17 UN Resolutions. Since the United Nations didn't do anything but stonewalled the inevitable, the Coalition of the Willing took it upon themselves to enforce those 17 UN Resolutions.

Resolution 687 gave Iraq 15 days to tell the UN about thier Chemical, missile and nuclear weapons systems as well where they are located, the number that they had and their types. For 12 Years they didn't do this.

The President of the UNSC even detailed 13 accounts of Hussein's violations of UN Resolutions. The world figured he was a threat to the International Peace and security. The world did nothing because they just didn't care.

The Coalition cared that he was a threat to his people, and a threat to the international peace and did something about it while following UN Guidelines.

So now I'm asking you how enforcing 17 UN Resolutions and going back to war when Hussein violated the UN Cease-Fire a violation of International Law.

Corneliu, you're wasting your time majoring in Political Science. You can become a fantastic defence lawyer in the mould of of Johnnie Cochran.

Corneliu, you're wasting your time majoring in Political Science. You can become a fantastic defence lawyer in the mould of of Johnnie Cochran.

My Global Politics Instructor did say that I'd make a good lawyer because I have an annoying habit of turning things around on people.

Anyway, so far in my poli sci course, I have an A (Intro to Global politics) and 2 B (Presidency and American Government)

Interesting I get 2 Bs that deal with American Politics but an A in an International Politics class. I find this funny.

My Global Politics Instructor did say that I'd make a good lawyer because I have an annoying habit of turning things around on people.

Anyway, so far in my poli sci course, I have an A (Intro to Global politics) and 2 B (Presidency and American Government)

Interesting I get 2 Bs that deal with American Politics but an A in an International Politics class. I find this funny.

If you wanna make it in international politics, you may have to learn to concede or to compromise. Your name-calling and refusal to answer questions asked of you is not going to serve you well in politics at all (in the UN at least).
Bit you'd probably make a great US President! Now all you have to do is drop your marks down....

And your crass ideology and nationalism doesn't leave a good impression either. Maybe it's your type that made the US and Israel so unpopular on the world stage.
You might be the next John Bolton, if you work very hard at it!

If you wanna make it in international politics, you may have to learn to concede or to compromise. Your name-calling and refusal to answer questions asked of you is not going to serve you well in politics at all (in the UN at least).

I do know how to concede and compromise. However, I won't concede when I'm right and since nobody put a compromise on the table.....

Bit you'd probably make a great US President! Now all you have to do is drop your marks down....

Won't do that. BTW: Bush is smarter than Kerry but that's a different thread.

And your crass ideology and nationalism doesn't leave a good impression either. Maybe it's your type that made the US and Israel so unpopular on the world stage.
You might be the next John Bolton, if you work very hard at it!

Good! Maybe I can light a fire under the UNs butt and actually turn that organization back to what the founders wanted the UN to be.

...However, I won't concede when I'm right.....
Then you have learnt nothing. Nobody is ever "right". One can agree on a future course of action, but if there is such a thing as an absolute right way, no one will ever think of it.
Your rightness so far:
-The war was justified because Saddam couldn't prove his innocence.
-The UN is useless and France has backstabbed you. Socialists control the UN.
-The UN Resolution speaking of "severe consequences" gave you the right to go to war and kill tens of thousands of people.
-The UN is anti-israel, and Arabs control it.
-Arabs started the middle east conflict, the peaceful jews only defend themselves. Criticising that is supporting terrorism.
-The dozens of links you got from CH, quoting many different people were wrong, and the people who wrote them are not worth your consideration.
-You constantly engage in personal attacks ("you are so stupid etc"), but manners are of no importance to you, especially since you've been doing so well in your intro course.

Did I miss anything?


Good! Maybe I can light a fire under the UNs butt and actually turn that organization back to what the founders wanted the UN to be.
Do you realise that one minute you call the UN an undemocratic, Arab-controlled and anti-Israel useless bunch of bureaucrats, the next you quote the UN as the justification for the war in Iraq?

Then you have learnt nothing. Nobody is ever "right". One can agree on a future course of action, but if there is such a thing as an absolute right way, no one will ever think of it.

I will agree with you here.

Your rightness so far:

-The war was justified because Saddam couldn't prove his innocence.

Correct.

-The UN is useless and France has backstabbed you. Socialists control the UN.

Well I don't know where you go tthe fact that the socialists are in control because I've made no mention of them but France did backstab us and the UN is useless though I agree with what is in the Charter.

-The UN Resolution speaking of "severe consequences" gave you the right to go to war and kill tens of thousands of people.

Can't get any severe than war my friend. How would you take "severe Consequences" to mean?

-The UN is anti-israel, and Arabs control it.

Since it has been the Arab League pushing the Israeli resolutions through....

-Arabs started the middle east conflict, the peaceful jews only defend themselves. Criticising that is supporting terrorism.

I like to know how you are twisting my words. The Arab League started it by attacking Israel and Israel defeated them. Defeated them in every war they have fought actually. Every war that Israel fought in, they did not start. Who started it? The Arab League. :rolleyes:
-The dozens of links you got from CH, quoting many different people were wrong, and the people who wrote them are not worth your consideration.

Those are OPINIONS!!! You need to start shifting facts from opinions. I don't read the opinion of others. I go to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions and a Cease-Fire. We took care of it.

-You constantly engage in personal attacks ("you are so stupid etc"), but manners are of no importance to you, especially since you've been doing so well in your intro course.

And now I'm moving on to International Law. I like to know what Poli Sci courses you have had.

Did I miss anything?

Don't think so.

Do you realise that one minute you call the UN an undemocratic, Arab-controlled and anti-Israel useless bunch of bureaucrats, the next you quote the UN as the justification for the war in Iraq?

Yep.

1. Correct.
Inncoent until proven guilty.

...but France did backstab us...
They acted in national interest and because 2000 years of war tend to teach people a lesson.
Calling that backstabbing is a strawman argument.


Can't get any severe than war my friend. How would you take "severe Consequences" to mean?
I'm not a diplomat, I wouldn't know. But do you not think that if everyone would've been ready to go to war, it would have said something along the lines of "military action"? It didn't so there were still countries (like Old Europe - :rolleyes: ) who didn't feel war was justified.
Since everyone should have equal rights in an institution like the UN, doesn't that warrant working towards an ultimatum, rather than going it pretty much alone and offending the rest of the world along the way (which cannot be a positive outcome in foreign policy, you must concede that)


I like to know how you are twisting my words. The Arab League started it by attacking Israel and Israel defeated them. Defeated them in every war they have fought actually. Every war that Israel fought in, they did not start. Who started it? The Arab League. :rolleyes:
Did you read any of my posts regarding Israel? Please read them again.
And as to who started what: The six-day war was started as a preemptive surprise attack by Israel on its neighbours.


Those are OPINIONS!!! You need to start shifting facts from opinions. I don't read the opinion of others. I go to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions and a Cease-Fire. We took care of it.
Apart from the fact that it is the matter of the UN to enforce its resolutions, not the US, see above.
And remember that Israel has violated more resolutions than Iraq, yet no one seriously considers it appropriate to bomb the shit out of them.


And now I'm moving on to International Law. I like to know what Poli Sci courses you have had.
Zero. I have had plenty of courses in political economics though.
My point is, intro courses mean nothing. In no subject. I got 7s (highest mark) in every single intro course I did. Did that mean anything for my second year courses?
Intro courses are just skimming the surface in order to get arts students interested when they do them.

Yep.
What's your justification for that then?