NationStates Jolt Archive

Originally Posted by Corneliu
Actually it isn't false. Under the ICC, it only has jurisdiction if the a nation is not willing to prosecute their own people. Since we are willing to prosecute our own people, AND HAVE, the ICC wouldn't have jurisdiction over us to begin with.

Why were personell not prosecuted for the mining of Nicaraguas harbours?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Corneliu
Because it isn't a court that is mandated by the United Nations Charter..


A certain amount of disengenuity there, as thats no reason no to sign up to it. However its true on this level - the US and the various powers have a veto in the UN, whereas they wouldnt and don't in the ICC.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Corneliu
I bet we prosecute without anyone knowing about it. JAG is really a closed door thing for the media unless it is a high profile situation like Abu Ghraib...


But as the torture regimes have been in many cases approved from the Washington level, including beatings and mental torture, who from there will be prosecuted and by whom? For instance the current US attorney general has written various papers on the subject which state that a suspect can be beaten as long as its not to death etc. Who deals with him? Who gave active support to those who launched a coup against Chavez? Who gets prosecuted for that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Corneliu
However, Bush didn't violate International law....


Then why did the British want a second resolution? And havent you been told about coming out with this discredited crap before - very fucking recently.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Corneliu
He constistently threatened the territorial integrity of his neighbors which under the UN Charter he cannot do.....


According to a british cabinet memo which I linked in another thread -

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. "

"The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."

This is from July 2002.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Please comment on this.

Question: WHy bring this fued here? can't you two settle it out among eachother?

Question: WHy bring this fued here? can't you two settle it out among eachother?
Shhh! *hands WesternPA popcorn*

...And, as Corneliu has ducked out of the building without gracing this thread, it is with great honour that I present Nodinia with this Special Commendation for Pwning Corny Twice in Consecutive Threads on the same Calendar Day.

http://clanlw.net/medal_images/Medals2/dkc.jpg

Congratulations, Nodinia. You are a credit to General.

...And, as Corneliu has ducked out of the building without gracing this thread, it is with great honour that I present Nodinia with this Special Commendation for Pwning Corny Twice in Consecutive Threads on the same Calendar Day.

http://clanlw.net/medal_images/Medals2/dkc.jpg

Congratulations, Nodinia. You are a credit to General.

huh?

huh?
Here have a doughnut.

Here have a doughnut.

Isn't anyone going to answer my question?

*eats the doughnut*

Isn't anyone going to answer my question?

*eats the doughnut*
Nope.

*eats a cruller*

*is dejected that the answer was no :(*

Isn't anyone going to answer my question?

*eats the doughnut*

Corny refused to answer these question in another thread, claiming the subject was thread-jacking. (Although he'd been arguing the subject for several pages.)

Thus, he was challenged to answer the issues in a new thread.

He has now failed to answer in two different threads. He has run out of excuses.

Corny refused to answer these question in another thread, claiming the subject was thread-jacking. (Although he'd been arguing the subject for several pages.)

Thus, he was challenged to answer the issues in a new thread.

He has now failed to answer in two different threads. He has run out of excuses.

Excuse me for asking but could it be possible that he had something else to do that prevents him from answering right away?

I'm just asking out of curiosity as I am new here.

Excuse me for asking but could it be possible that he had something else to do that prevents him from answering right away?

I'm just asking out of curiosity as I am new here.
Don't be absurd! There's nothing outside of the internet!

Don't be absurd! There's nothing outside of the internet!

From personal experience, that isn't true :D

Excuse me for asking but could it be possible that he had something else to do that prevents him from answering right away?

I'm just asking out of curiosity as I am new here.
Ummmm ..... no.
He continued posting in the other topic and when he was pwned there, he left again. (as usual)

...And, as Corneliu has ducked out of the building without gracing this thread, it is with great honour that I present Nodinia with this Special Commendation for Pwning Corny Twice in Consecutive Threads on the same Calendar Day.

http://clanlw.net/medal_images/Medals2/dkc.jpg

Congratulations, Nodinia. You are a credit to General.

My thanks Sir but it was fish in a very small container. The annoying thing is that he will be spouting the exact same shite again at the first opportunity.

My thanks Sir but it was fish in a very small container. The annoying thing is that he will be spouting the exact same shite again at the first opportunity.
Entirely too true. Entirely too true.

Still and all, it'll be memorable for me.

NSG thanks you.

I dub this thread, Flame War!

I dub this thread, Flame War!
:confused:

There's hardly an ember left glowing.

Where were you?

You have anything of substance to say or is this a bash Corneliu Thread?

You have anything of substance to say or is this a bash Corneliu Thread?
See OP, he doesn't bash you there and you know by not answering it you're going to get bashed more of course maybe that's what you want so that the thread gets locked and you don't have to answer Nodinia.

I noted the letters ICC and thought we had a thread about cricket going for a second. hm.


carry on.

Shhh! *hands WesternPA popcorn*

Peanuts! Popcorn! Cold Beer! Get your cold beer here!

Here sonny, have some popcorn and sit down!

You have anything of substance to say or is this a bash Corneliu Thread?

Reda the OP, oh he who has been conquered.

Reda the OP, oh he who has been conquered.

I have not been conquered in anyway whatsoever and I have read the OP. Now if he can get rid of all the BS and actually put down the issues, I'll be more than happy to respond.

I dub this thread, Flame War!

It has that ability because no matter what I say, I'm going to be wrong anyway.

Peanuts! Popcorn! Cold Beer! Get your cold beer here!

Here sonny, have some popcorn and sit down!
ALBATROSS!!

It has that ability because no matter what I say, I'm going to be wrong anyway.
...and so far, you've said nothing whatsoever.:rolleyes:

...and so far, you've said nothing whatsoever.:rolleyes:

Give me a reason why? No matter what I say, I'm going to be wrong no matter what. And I already know, I'm going to be bashed for whatever opinions I have regardless of the facts that surround the opinion.

Give me a reason why? No matter what I say, I'm going to be wrong no matter what. And I already know, I'm going to be bashed for whatever opinions I have regardless of the facts that surround the opinion.
Maybe that's because you never back up anything you say when asked?

No matter what I say, I'm going to be wrong no matter what.
You heard it here first, folks... he'll be wrong, no matter what. And from his very own cherubic lips, at that.

Maybe that's because you never back up anything you say when asked?

There are many ways to back things up. Links is just one way. One does not need links to prove the accuracy of what one person is saying.

You heard it here first, folks... he'll be wrong, no matter what. And from his very own cherubic lips, at that.

Because I do not subscribe to the same beliefs as most of the people on here.

Because I do not subscribe to the same beliefs as most of the people on here.
Well, isn't this the point of NS? To present your beliefs/arguments in a manner conducive to debate? "Not subscribing" to anyone else's beliefs isn't going to cut it as an excuse to worm away from it, you know.

With anybody.

Well, isn't this the point of NS? To present your beliefs/arguments in a manner conducive to debate? "Not subscribing" to anyone else's beliefs isn't going to cut it as an excuse to worm away from it, you know.

With anybody.

I have presented my beliefs with all the facts surrounding the Iraq War and all I get is a gangbang and telling me what a bad boy I was for believing lies. Yea real mature posting goes on here.

Now I'm off for awhile because it is Sunday and I'm going to go pray to God.

I have presented my beliefs with all the facts surrounding the Iraq War and all I get is a gangbang and telling me what a bad boy I was for believing lies. Yea real mature posting goes on here.

Now I'm off for awhile because it is Sunday and I'm going to go pray to God.
Nobody's gangbanged you.

No-one at all.

It must be awfully embarassing, what with all the wild jumping up and down and flapping your arms you did last night in Moderation regarding non-existent flame-wars on this thread directed at you, and all.

Have fun with God, ask Him to return my Doctor Who DVDs, willya?








*Edit: Oh, and you haven't presented Jack Shit in this thread and you know it. Just FYI there, Corny. Just FYI.

Well, isn't this the point of NS? To present your beliefs/arguments in a manner conducive to debate? "Not subscribing" to anyone else's beliefs isn't going to cut it as an excuse to worm away from it, you know.

With anybody.

And the point of reality is that it scarcely matters what the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were at this point.

The US is already there, and matters are different. And as far as "international law" is concerned, or even the United Nations, it's a very lame joke. Not one nation is enforcing anything against the US - purely because they cannot.

And that is a FACT. Yes, the US is stuck fighting an insurgency, and that may be bad enough. But not one other nation on Earth is making even the slightest move to stop the occupation, eject the US from Iraq, impose sanctions, etc.

Face it, you're just pissed because the US is the official 800 pound gorilla, and in the end, it can and will do whatever stirkes its fancy, because you can't do anything other than an insurgency to keep it busy.

Nobody's gangbanged you.

No-one at all.

yea right :rolleyes:

It must be awfully embarassing, what with all the wild jumping up and down and flapping your arms you did last night in Moderation regarding non-existent flame-wars on this thread directed at you, and all.

Actually, I was quite composed as it was written in a cool and orderly fashion.

Have fun with God, ask Him to return my Doctor Who DVDs, willya?

No.

And the point of reality is that it scarcely matters what the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were at this point.

The US is already there, and matters are different. And as far as "international law" is concerned, or even the United Nations, it's a very lame joke. Not one nation is enforcing anything against the US - purely because they cannot.

And that is a FACT. Yes, the US is stuck fighting an insurgency, and that may be bad enough. But not one other nation on Earth is making even the slightest move to stop the occupation, eject the US from Iraq, impose sanctions, etc.

Face it, you're just pissed because the US is the official 800 pound gorilla, and in the end, it can and will do whatever stirkes its fancy, because you can't do anything other than an insurgency to keep it busy.
This isn't about me, DK. And this isn't my thread, not my OP - I'm not pissed at all.

Though I am becoming increasingly amused.

This isn't about me, DK. And this isn't my thread, not my OP - I'm not pissed at all.

Though I am becoming increasingly amused.
Talk without links is one thing. Talk by nations without the balls or ability to back it up is just laughable.

If I were President, I would have called the French Ambassador into my office during the invasion and laughed at him.

Nobody's gangbanged you.

No-one at all.
yea right :rolleyes:

Proof?
No.

Meanie.

Talk without links is one thing. Talk by nations without the balls or ability to back it up is just laughable.

If I were President, I would have called the French Ambassador into my office during the invasion and laughed at him.
:confused:

*we'll pause now while Corneliu seeks spiritual guidance and internal fortitude from conversing with his Deity-of-choice*

-station i.d.-

I have presented my beliefs with all the facts surrounding the Iraq War and all I get is a gangbang and telling me what a bad boy I was for believing lies. Yea real mature posting goes on here.

Now I'm off for awhile because it is Sunday and I'm going to go pray to God.


To be quite correct, you have stated your opinions, and when asked to explain how they relate to the real world (for instance the thoughts and policies of Blair, Bush et al) you have refused to do so. I have presented to you Government documents that are verified as being genuine and you have, as of yet, refused to deal with the questions they raise. I have done so "politely" and "not so politley" and you have headed for the hills regardless. It would be safe to say that as the consistent content was the memos, it was they that caused your departure.

I'm quite well aware that there is a website out there with an opinion for every lunatic idea going, however I would have thought that an independently verified cabinet level memo carried in the London times and a number of other "respectable" sources was worthy of examination. You don't and the only thing I can conclude from that is that your whole argument is false, and you are quite well aware of it. I would appreciate it therefore if you would stop repeating it at every given opportunity, as somebody spreading a view they at least believe, defend and endorse is perfectly fair enough, but such a deliberate attempt to spread falsehood smacks of evil, or, at the very least, mental disturbance, to my mind.

While praying to your god, you might seek some guidance on this. I don't believe in it myself, but in a sense its a form of meditation which may do you some good

Ya know, it really doesn't matter what one believes to be the truth and why someone believes it. We are all human here and we all believe something different.

As my father always told me, there are 3 sides to every story. Your side, my side, with the truth in the middle.

No one will ever know what the real reasons for going into Iraq is. We have the public record saying what those reasons but those could be the true motives or only some of the real reasons. We'll never know what all the reasons were.

Debates are wonderful when both sides listen to the other side without all the insults. I've been browsing these forums for awhile now and when someone with the opposite view spouts them, no matter how coherent or how many links they provide (and the Internet shouldn't be trusted 100% anyway according to my significant other) your always going to have someone on the other side calling him a liar and that the links used are bias.

Well who decides what is biased and what isn't? Most sources i've seen have been biased towards one side or the other but those sites still have facts to go with their arguements.

So really, what is being debated here?

Deep Kimchi, your right that it doesn't matter why we invaded another country. It happened. Now the thing to do is help those who are fighting over there succeed in their mission. All this bickering does is aide the insurgency. Divide and conqueor is the oldest trick in the book (babylon 5).

It doesn't matter if someone believes the invasion is legal or illegal. Something can only be illegal if there is punishment and so far, none is forthcoming. I know I'm simplifying it but I am only a highschool girl.

According to my significant other, politics is complex and that the full story will never be known and he is right.

Talk without links is one thing. Talk by nations without the balls or ability to back it up is just laughable.

If I were President, I would have called the French Ambassador into my office during the invasion and laughed at him.

Now that would just have completely eroded all economic ties to France (should France be able to get it through the EU).

Not to mention France does have the ability. They're called Nukes. Nobody uses those because it would be stupid.

Much like it's rather stupid to go around wanking your military might.

Whats being debated here, is actually the lack of willingness to debate. If somebody were to post that "x is stupid" then the obvious question is "why/what makes them stupid". Refusal to answer that, or in this case refusal to comment on how "x" has managed to earn a college degree in a difficult and demanding field, get into mensa and made ground breaking contributions to science - sort of puts the kybosh on the whole business. Its also dishonest, in that somebody knows damn well it won't hold up to scrutiny.

But what's the point of debating something that we cannot change?

Whats being debated here, is actually the lack of willingness to debate.

Is this even possible? People debating not wanting to debate? I'm getting dizzy...

But what's the point of debating something that we cannot change?
Debate is the essence of democracy. :D

If you don't think there is a point to debate, then why did you post numerous times in the Impeach Bush thread?

Personally speaking, I have learned a lot over the past two years here on Nation States.

Debate is the essence of democracy. :D

If you don't think there is a point to debate, then why did you post numerous times in the Impeach Bush thread?

Personally speaking, I have learned a lot over the past two years here on Nation States.

Ok you have a point there about debate. I yield it. I guess I'm just not an experience debator.

There are many ways to back things up. Links is just one way. One does not need links to prove the accuracy of what one person is saying.
Yet, you are the first to ask for proof when someone posts something that doesn't coincide with your worldview. When the poster does reveal his/her proof, you have a tendency to dismiss it or issue ad hominems.

For example:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10635797&postcount=288

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10633505&postcount=283

If you want to debate, that is okay, but be prepared to offer proof for your assertions. It would be a refreshing change. :D

Ok you have a point there about debate. I yield it. I guess I'm just not an experience debator.
However, through debate you will gain experience, and knowledge and hopefully you will use what you learn wisely. :)

However, through debate you will gain experience, and knowledge and hopefully you will use what you learn wisely. :)

My significant other is more interested in Politics than I am but I will do my best to learn.

My significant other is more interested in Politics than I am but I will do my best to learn.
Well, the good thing about Nation States is that there is a wide assortment of topics to learn from, and it doesn't have to be about politics.

I'm off to bed CH. If you like, you can use the telegram function if you like to stay in touch :)

I'm off to bed CH. If you like, you can use the telegram function if you like to stay in touch :)
Ok thanks and have a good night!! :)

Well, the good thing about Nation States is that there is a wide assortment of topics to learn from, and it doesn't have to be about politics.

Sweet. :)

If you like to stay in touch, you can telegram me if ya like :) Good night CanuckHeaven :)

PS: I hope its ok to call you CH!

Sweet. :)

If you like to stay in touch, you can telegram me if ya like :) Good night CanuckHeaven :)

PS: I hope its ok to call you CH!
CH is okay with me :) ...I have been called much worse.

<snip>
Something can only be illegal if there is punishment and so far, none is forthcoming. I know I'm simplifying it but I am only a highschool girl.

According to my significant other, politics is complex and that the full story will never be known and he is right.
I'm all for manners and the brotherhood of man, etc, but as a point of information: Illegality is not dependent on punishment. In fact, an action has to be determined to be illegal before punishment happens. So, we can know if an action was a crime or not even if the perpetrator is never punished for it. For instance, the infamous Boston gangster, Whitey Bulger, has been a free fugitive for something like 10 years, and the FBI is nowhere near catching him, much less punishing him, but that doesn't make the people he killed any less murdered.

Yes, politics is complex, and the full story of lots of things may never be known -- but that is no excuse for not trying to find out. We keep examining these stories for the same reason the FBI is still hunting for Whitey Bulger. They might catch him, and we might learn the truth.