NationStates Jolt Archive

I liked Spain after their King told Chavez to shut up, and then they had to go and ruin it. Pity.

Bush deserves much worse.

I think my post is even merciful.

Be that as it may, it's still hypocritical of my government to ask for GWB & Co.'s blood. Ex-president Aznar had as much of a hand in the Afghani invasion and the subsequent Iraqi war as GWB. It may be interesting to see what happens, but I don't see this boding well.

You know they're not targeting George W., right?

And why is it hypocritical to go after the people who arranged the torture of Spanish citizens at Guantanamo? That's really not directly connected to the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq.

I wouldn't mind not seeing Bush and his goons banned from Spain. But I do recognize that if anyone wants justice it should befall only in the hands of the American justice system.
Why? When they've hurt non-Americans?

I and millions of other Americans will never permit some left-wing punk in a foreign kangaroo court to implement a political vendetta against him and members of his administration. Nor, I suspect, will the Spanish government, assuming they have enough grown-ups on hand to make decisions.
And you claimed to be a lawyer once...

You know they're not targeting George W., right?

And why is it hypocritical to go after the people who arranged the torture of Spanish citizens at Guantanamo? That's really not directly connected to the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq.

Garzón IS targeting GWB. He's been quite clear on his intentions. This is the Pinochet BS all over again.

Why? When they've hurt non-Americans?

As I told Muravyets, to each his own. Bush, his goons, and every American who did something wrong in the war is, through and through, a problem of the Americans. That it may set a record, history-wise, yes, and it would bring a lot of closure. Will it happen, will Garzón achieve what he has set out to do? That's anyone's bet.

Bush deserves much worse.

I think my post is even merciful.

Je, es rabioso. Te cabreas, macho, qué porte!:hail:

President Bush got the job done. You all couldn't stop it.

Actually, we kind of did in 2006.:D

You can't do anything about it now.

Except for all those executive orders and laws being passed undoing the anal reaming Boy George gave the US:D

You will never be able to do anything about it.

The closing of Gitmo begs to differ.:D

I think my post is even merciful.

Bush, whilst having done a horrific thing (or should that be horrific things?) to Iraq, doesn't deserve what you want to have done to him. He's not nearly as bad as Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Mussolini, Galtieri, Mugabe, Mao, Jerry Rawlings and many others.

I agree with the guy who posted before me on this: I see an impressive track record. Some of them I disagree with, but in the case of Afghanistan or Congo I purely think we did a good job. Additionally: take a look at Afghanistan in 2000-2001: who do you think lead the spear in the war? The CIA. Read the book "Jawbreaker", it talks all about that.

Yes, paving the way for a dictator to eventually come to power and misrule the country for over three decades, robbing the country blind while torturing, killing, and jailing thousands, is definitely something to be proud of. :rolleyes:

Bush, whilst having done a horrific thing (or should that be horrific things?) to Iraq, doesn't deserve what you want to have done to him. He's not nearly as bad as Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Mussolini, Galtieri, Mugabe, Mao, Jerry Nkrumah and many others.

I think you're mixing Jerry Rawlings with Kwame Nkrumah. ;)

Yes, paving the way for a dictator to eventually come to power and misrule the country for over three decades, robbing the country blind while torturing, killing, and jailing thousands, is definitely something to be proud of. :rolleyes:

Not the mention the CIA kind of helped create our current public enemy number one.

Wow someone farther to the right than me...

Foreign Policy-wise, I could care less about what happened. But domestically, he did totally drop the ball inregards to numerous travesties against the constitution (not only blaming him though, I hold all of Congress responsible for those).

Oh and whether you like it or not, Obama is your president. I didn't vote for him, but he is still the leader of my country.

So it's okay to wage wars of aggression and slaughter hundreds of thousands of foreigners, as long as the Constitution is (ostensibly) followed at home?

Edit: If that's not your position, I apologize, but that was the impression you gave.

Actually, you are being offensive. .
ROFLMFAO.
How in any way, shape or form is that offencive?
Unlike the current occupant of the White House, George W. Bush was my president. I'm glad he did what was necessary. I only wish he'd done more. I and millions of other Americans will never permit some left-wing punk in a foreign kangaroo court to implement a political vendetta against him and members of his administration. Nor, I suspect, will the Spanish government, assuming they have enough grown-ups on hand to make decisions..
How is Obama not your president?
Why so harsh about Spain? They may not be a superpower, but atleast they have the balls to say that Bush needs to be investigated.
President Bush got the job done. You all couldn't stop it. You can't do anything about it now. You will never be able to do anything about it. So get over it and find some other fantasy to gratify yourself with.
So murder and torture was the job he was intending to "get done"?

So it's okay to wage wars of aggression and slaughter hundreds of thousands of foreigners, as long as the Constitution is (ostensibly) followed at home?

So it seems.

Not the mention the CIA kind of helped create our current public enemy number one.

That, too.

So murder and torture was the job he was intending to "get done"?

To be fair, if Bush's original plan as to utterly destroy the US's repution, shred the constitution, increase executive power to staggering new heights, increase the rich-poor gap exponentially, aid in the creation of and then preside over the biggest economic meltdown in the US's history, paving the way for his political party to be voted into near obsolestion in the next election...

I think he got the job done rather well.;)

To be fair, if Bush's original plan as to utterly destroy the US's repution, shred the constitution, increase executive power to staggering new heights, increase the rich-poor gap exponentially, aid in the creation of and then preside over the biggest economic meltdown in the US's history, paving the way for his politicall party to be voted into near obsolestion in the next election...

I think he got the job done rather well.;)

Agreed, GWB was a paragon in his torture skills.:wink:

Bush, whilst having done a horrific thing (or should that be horrific things?) to Iraq, doesn't deserve what you want to have done to him. He's not nearly as bad as Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Mussolini, Galtieri, Mugabe, Mao, Jerry Nkrumah and many others.

That's because I didn't tell you what I'd like to see done to THEM. :D

I think you're mixing Jerry Rawlings with Kwame Nkrumah. ;)

I am, sorry. Jerry Rawlings is what I meant.

So murder and torture was the job he was intending to "get done"?

"Mission Accomplished!"

"Mission Accomplished!"

Because united we stand.

I am, sorry. Jerry Rawlings is what I meant.

No worries.

Because united we stand.

Indeed.

Check TGs, please. :)

Indeed.

Check TGs, please. :)

Roger.

To be fair, if Bush's original plan as to utterly destroy the US's repution, shred the constitution, increase executive power to staggering new heights, increase the rich-poor gap exponentially, aid in the creation of and then preside over the biggest economic meltdown in the US's history, paving the way for his political party to be voted into near obsolestion in the next election...

I think he got the job done rather well.;)

In that regard, he would be the most successful President of all time...if we measure "success" by how well he accomplished what he set out to do. :p

To be fair, if Bush's original plan as to utterly destroy the US's repution, shred the constitution, increase executive power to staggering new heights, increase the rich-poor gap exponentially, aid in the creation of and then preside over the biggest economic meltdown in the US's history, paving the way for his political party to be voted into near obsolestion in the next election...

I think he got the job done rather well.;)

Oh sorry, should have gone into specifics.

Garzón IS targeting GWB. He's been quite clear on his intentions. This is the Pinochet BS all over again.
Not yet, not in this round of things. Right now, he is not targeting Bush. He might try to do so down the road, but that happens later.


As I told Muravyets, to each his own. Bush, his goons, and every American who did something wrong in the war is, through and through, a problem of the Americans. That it may set a record, history-wise, yes, and it would bring a lot of closure. Will it happen, will Garzón achieve what he has set out to do? That's anyone's bet.
So a country shouldn't prosecute those responsible for harming it's citizens outside their borders? Not even if the authorities in charge of that jurisdiction are unwilling or unable to do it themselves?

Garzón IS targeting GWB. He's been quite clear on his intentions. This is the Pinochet BS all over again..

Wasn't he that dude from Chilie? And now someone he locked up is president?

As I told Muravyets, to each his own. Bush, his goons, and every American who did something wrong in the war is, through and through, a problem of the Americans. That it may set a record, history-wise, yes, and it would bring a lot of closure. Will it happen, will Garzón achieve what he has set out to do? That's anyone's bet.

Would you conider soldiers to be "Americans who did something wrong"? Because they were just doing there jobs.

Would you conider soldiers to be "Americans who did something wrong"? Because they were just doing there jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

Oh, Im sorry. I missed the part of the Nuremberg trials were we executed every Nazi soldier.

You keep throwing that around as if there is some kind of parallel.

Oh, Im sorry. I missed the part of the Nuremberg trials were we executed every Nazi soldier.

You keep throwing that around as if there is some kind of parallel.

Who called for an execution? I'm just pointing out that "following orders" is no excuse.

Who called for an execution? I'm just pointing out that "following orders" is no excuse.

Well, it clearly was good enough for the nazi soldiers who werent executed.

You keep using Nuremberg to justify youre extremelly irrational and slightly offensive hatred for a whole group of people. Thats my point.

Well, it clearly was good enough for the nazi soldiers who werent executed.

You keep using Nuremberg to justify youre extremelly irrational and slightly offensive hatred for a whole group of people. Thats my point.

Where the fuck do I do that?

Well, it clearly was good enough for the nazi soldiers who werent executed.

Even many Nazis who did use the Nuremberg defense were executed (and rightly so).

Wasn't he that dude from Chilie? And now someone he locked up is president?

Locked up and tortured. And her father was killed by the Pinochet regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

And that has what to do with anything?
Comparing troops in Iraq to Nazi soldiers is low, even for you.

Even many Nazis who did use the Nuremberg defense were executed (and rightly so).

Yes, thats true. My point is however that while it didnt work as a defense, we clearly can recognize that being in the military adn doing your job is not grounds for punishment if you did nothing wrong, as is evident by many Nazi troops not being executed.

Where the fuck do I do that?

Every time someone says "I dont have a problem with the US soldiers in Iraq, they had no say and were just doing their job" you throw up that wiki link.

Yes, thats true. My point is however that while it didnt work as a defense, we clearly can recognize that being in the military adn doing your job is not grounds for punishment if you did nothing wrong, as is evident by many Nazi troops not being executed.

Good point.

Every time someone says "I dont have a problem with the US soldiers in Iraq, they had no say and were just doing their job" you throw up that wiki link.

That's to point out that "just doing their job" are not magic words.

Wasn't he that dude from Chilie? And now someone he locked up is president?

Chile, and yes, Garzón prosecuted Pinochet. Too bad Pinochet died awaiting trial.

Would you conider soldiers to be "Americans who did something wrong"? Because they were just doing there jobs.

I will abstain from posting my opinion on that subject, RoI.

Comparing troops in Iraq to Nazi soldiers is low, even for you.

It figures that you would interpret what I said as doing that.

I do not feel obliged to enlighten you, however, so think whatever you wish.

That's to point out that "just doing their job" are not magic words.

Then do me a favor and explain that in the future rather then just throwing up the link. Otherwise it can lead to people assuming.

Im glad I was wrong in this case.

Not yet, not in this round of things. Right now, he is not targeting Bush. He might try to do so down the road, but that happens later.

But that's his ultimate goal. And he's relentless.

So a country shouldn't prosecute those responsible for harming it's citizens outside their borders? Not even if the authorities in charge of that jurisdiction are unwilling or unable to do it themselves?

I am against this on the pure fact that there are far more pressing things happening in Spain for this to matter, at least not now.

But that's his ultimate goal. And he's relentless.
So you don't like that he's targeting Ashcroft and Yoo now because he'll go after Bush later?


I am against this on the pure fact that there are far more pressing things happening in Spain for this to matter, at least not now.
Is the pursuit of justice a luxury that should only be afforded when it's convenient?

I will abstain from posting my opinion on that subject, RoI.
Fair enough. May I ask why?
It figures that you would interpret what I said as doing that.

I do not feel obliged to enlighten you, however, so think whatever you wish.
I will, as it is a free country.


I am against this on the pure fact that there are far more pressing things happening in Spain for this to matter, at least not now.

Like what?

So you don't like that he's targeting Ashcroft and Yoo now because he'll go after Bush later?

Not at all. Bush is the ultimate goal, and should be so anyway. That's not the reason why I find this objectionable.

Is the pursuit of justice a luxury that should only be afforded when it's convenient?

Who's implying that? The justice Garzón wants is, yet again, hypocritical. Spain did it's share of crap in Iraq. It's just idiotic.

"Mission Accomplished!"

*rimshot (http://www.instantrimshot.com)* :p

Who's implying that? The justice Garzón wants is, yet again, hypocritical. Spain did it's share of crap in Iraq. It's just idiotic.

If your point is that maybe he should go after anyone in Spain who is guilty before he deals with Bush, I am inclined to agree.

Fair enough. May I ask why?

No, you may not. Suffice it that I won't utter an opinion on this subject.:wink:

Like what?

Like social problems, immigrtion problems, helth problems, things that are more pressing in the long run, to the balance and stability of my country than an Inquisitorial Witch Hunt. I think Bush deserves whatever destiny has in store for him, I think it would be divine justice if he were to be tried, but Baltasar Garzón isn't the man to do this. And Spain is surely not the right country to be clamoring for his head.

*rimshot (http://www.instantrimshot.com)* :p

*bows*

To be fair, if Bush's original plan as to utterly destroy the US's repution, shred the constitution, increase executive power to staggering new heights, increase the rich-poor gap exponentially, aid in the creation of and then preside over the biggest economic meltdown in the US's history, paving the way for his political party to be voted into near obsolestion in the next election...

I think he got the job done rather well.;)

Hey, I think I like you. You're good at summing things up. ;)

EDIT: Hey, I didn't even notice your sig. Wow, you have turned over a new leaf. Even your grammar has improved. :p

If your point is that maybe he should go after anyone in Spain who is guilty before he deals with Bush, I am inclined to agree.

Which I do, KoL. That's also why I think the American justices system is the one who should deal with GWB.

Which I do, KoL. That's also why I think the American justices system is the one who should deal with GWB.

Ill agree with that in part. I definitally think countries should clean house as best they can before they go after people outside their own borders.

Not at all. Bush is the ultimate goal, and should be so anyway. That's not the reason why I find this objectionable.



Who's implying that? The justice Garzón wants is, yet again, hypocritical. Spain did it's share of crap in Iraq. It's just idiotic.
Who, within Spain, do you think is as guilty of international crimes as members of the Bush admin? I'm wondering if you think your government should clean its own house before it gets into cleaning us ours.

Who, within Spain, do you think is as guilty of international crimes as members of the Bush admin? I'm wondering if you think your government should clean its own house before it gets into cleaning us ours.

I think the main goon in Spain is ex-President Aznar. If he wants to prosecute someone, he should start with Aznar and his goons. Aznar agreed to help Bush, he agreed to send troops into Iraq and give support to the American troops, use Spanish air space and all that.

I think the main goon in Spain is ex-President Aznar. If he wants to prosecute someone, he should start with Aznar and his goons. Aznar agreed to help Bush, he agreed to send troops into Iraq and give support to the American troops, use Spanish air space and all that.

That, in and of itself though, is not a crime.

I think the main goon in Spain is ex-President Aznar. If he wants to prosecute someone, he should start with Aznar and his goons. Aznar agreed to help Bush, he agreed to send troops into Iraq and give support to the American troops, use Spanish air space and all that.

Is it just me, or does Aznar look very, very creepy?

Which I do, KoL. That's also why I think the American justices system is the one who should deal with GWB.

Yeah right.

That, in and of itself though, is not a crime.

That is like arguing that the Nazi soldiers weren't accomplices to genocide just because they were acting on orders. Yes, Aznar was a partner in crime. He aided a man, aided him and his boys commit attrocities.

Is it just me, or does Aznar look very, very creepy?

He is.

Not at all. Bush is the ultimate goal, and should be so anyway. That's not the reason why I find this objectionable.
So disregarding the end goal, you wouldn't be opposed to going after the Bush underlings, am I understanding you correctly? (With the exceptions we get back to below, of course.)


Who's implying that?
You are, actually, by saying that there are more pressing things to be concerned about, and then listing societal problems that is not solved through criminal investigations.
Like social problems, immigrtion problems, helth problems, things that are more pressing in the long run, to the balance and stability of my country than an Inquisitorial Witch Hunt.
Why cannot the search for justice in this case run parallell with the fight against these problems?

The justice Garzón wants is, yet again, hypocritical. Spain did it's share of crap in Iraq. It's just idiotic.
Why is it hypocritical? What did Spain have to do with the torture at Guantanamo?

No, you may not. Suffice it that I won't utter an opinion on this subject.:wink:.
:$Sorry:$


Like social problems, immigrtion problems, helth problems, things that are more pressing in the long run, to the balance and stability of my country than an Inquisitorial Witch Hunt. I think Bush deserves whatever destiny has in store for him, I think it would be divine justice if he were to be tried, but Baltasar Garzón isn't the man to do this. And Spain is surely not the right country to be clamoring for his head.

What immigration problems?

That is like arguing that the Nazi soldiers weren't accomplices to genocide just because they were acting on orders. Yes, Aznar was a partner in crime. He aided a man, aided him and his boys commit attrocities.

Well, actually its different. Aznar would have had to have known about what was going on or Spain would have to actually have participated. Helping with the war is not the same as helping with Gitmo.

He is.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Aznar_in_Moscow_29_May_2002-1.jpg

He looks like he's holding (and about to eat) a baby, but someone Photoshopped the infant out of the photo. :p

Ill agree with that in part. I definitally think countries should clean house as best they can before they go after people outside their own borders.

So does this mean that the actions of the Bush administration have effectively shut down any attempt to prosecute people who harm US citizens outside US borders until the crimes of the Bush administration has been dealth with?

What immigration problems?

The one we're having at our borders with the African immigrants that flock our maritime borders almost every day.

So does this mean that the actions of the Bush administration have effectively shut down any attempt to prosecute people who harm US citizens outside US borders until the crimes of the Bush administration has been dealth with?

No, because we have more then one court. It neednt shut other opperations or trials down. However, I will say I find it hypocritical that we are letting Bush get a free pass while going after others.

Well, actually its different. Aznar would have had to have known about what was going on or Spain would have to actually have participated. Helping with the war is not the same as helping with Gitmo.

My main concern is the acts of Spain in Iraq, not Gitmo.

My main concern is the acts of Spain in Iraq, not Gitmo.

Well, there would need to be evidence of Spanish wrong doing in Iraq to prosecute. The war in and of itself is not a "war crime", and Aznar has already been punished as much as he can be for simply entering the war, he was voted out of office.

What immigration problems?
Thousands of people travelling from the African continent to Spain.

Well, there would need to be evidence of Spanish wrong doing in Iraq to prosecute. The war in and of itself is not a "war crime".

But do you see my point? To see the dirt in the US's eyes when ours are cacked with shit is... well... idiotic.

But do you see my point? To see the dirt in the US's eyes when ours are cacked with shit is... well... idiotic.

I see your point, but it only holds up if there actually were war crimes committed by Spain.

I havent heard of any. You being in Spain may have. If you would care to enlighten me, even with rumors, that would be helpful.

No, because we have more then one court. It neednt shut other opperations or trials down. However, I will say I find it hypocritical that we are letting Bush get a free pass while going after others.
Indeed. It is possible to do two things at once.

My main concern is the acts of Spain in Iraq, not Gitmo.
But that's not the topic of the investigation at hand.

I think the main goon in Spain is ex-President Aznar. If he wants to prosecute someone, he should start with Aznar and his goons. Aznar agreed to help Bush, he agreed to send troops into Iraq and give support to the American troops, use Spanish air space and all that.
I would agree with that. If I recall correctly, didn't Aznar also try to spin the Madrid bombings to use politically against ETA? That was Cheney-level cynicism.

That is like arguing that the Nazi soldiers weren't accomplices to genocide just because they were acting on orders. Yes, Aznar was a partner in crime. He aided a man, aided him and his boys commit attrocities.
However, don't we first have to establish that a crime existed before we can accuse Aznar of being a partner in it?

Unless Aznar violated Spanish law, or an international law that Spain is a bound by under treaty, then his guilt still doesn't make it inappropriate for Spain to go after US officials for what those officials did.

I get that you seem to be suggesting that Garzon is just grandstanding on a matter that he is never going to get anywhere with. I am not saying anything good or bad about Garzon because I don't know anything about him. I'm just saying that, while I can understand that you think Spain should be using it's resources and power differently, and you are most probably completely right about that, I still disagree that whatever should be done about Bush & Co should only be done by the US. It would be better if it were done by the US, but that does not mean that the US is the only authority that should be doing anything.

But I've made that point more than once, so I'll sit down now.

I would agree with that. If I recall correctly, didn't Aznar also try to spin the Madrid bombings to use politically against ETA? That was Cheney-level cynicism.

He did, yes.

I would agree with that. If I recall correctly, didn't Aznar also try to spin the Madrid bombings to use politically against ETA? That was Cheney-level cynicism.

Yes, 11M was blamed on ETA. And there was intelligence, very good at that, that pointed 11M was done by terrorist cells linked to Al-Qaeda for Spain's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Osama bin Laden himself threatened the Spanish government prior to 11M happening.

However, don't we first have to establish that a crime existed before we can accuse Aznar of being a partner in it?

The crime, for us, is simple. He dragged the country into a war we didn't need to participate in.

I get that you seem to be suggesting that Garzon is just grandstanding on a matter that he is never going to get anywhere with. I am not saying anything good or bad about Garzon because I don't know anything about him. I'm just saying that, while I can understand that you think Spain should be using it's resources and power differently, and you are most probably completely right about that, I still disagree that whatever should be done about Bush & Co should only be done by the US. It would be better if it were done by the US, but that does not mean that the US is the only authority that should be doing anything.

I just think that since he was your president, he should be tried by American hands. That's all.

But I've made that point more than once, so I'll sit down now.

I have made mine. Spain should abstain from this. Will my country do so? Oh, not a chance.

The crime, for us, is simple. He dragged the country into a war we didn't need to participate in.

But that isnt a crime. It wasnt illegal. He violated no laws. In effect, he has already been punished for that. He lost the election.

I have made mine. Spain should abstain from this. Will my country do so? Oh, not a chance.

It's the curse of that infamous Spanish blood. :)

But that isnt a crime. It wasnt illegal. He violated no laws. In effect, he has already been punished for that. He lost the election.

Debatable. I contend that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and when joining an illegal war of agression the Spanish president would be just as culpable as Bush.

It's the curse of that infamous Spanish blood. :)

*Flamencos*

Debatable. I contend that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and when joining an illegal war of agression the Spanish president would be just as culpable as Bush.

And Im sure youre also prepared to tell me how it was illegal, especially when we take into consideration the fact that the UN currently cannot violate our sovereignty. What I mean to say is, what treaty has the US signed declaring we would not ever invade a country under the circumstances Iraq was invaded under?

It's the curse of that infamous Spanish blood. :)

Ah yes, we are hot blooded, myself included. Hot blooded, for everything.

Debatable. I contend that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and when joining an illegal war of agression the Spanish president would be just as culpable as Bush.

Which is precisely what we consider Aznar to be.

Ah yes, we are hot blooded, myself included. Hot blooded, for everything.

Add to my Spanish ancestry my Scottish, German, and Irish ancestry, and you have a recipe for a guy that gets royally pissed at the drop of a hat! :p

Add to my Spanish ancestry my Scottish, German, and Irish ancestry, and you have a recipe for a guy that gets royally pissed at the drop of a hat! :p

You, mate, are just plain explosive. Just mixing Irish and Scottish would have sufficed.:tongue:

Ah yes, we are hot blooded, myself included. Hot blooded, for everything.

Bush doesn't realise how much trouble he's in. He's got himself on the wrong side of a nation of passionate kitties.

:)

Bush doesn't realise how much trouble he's in. He's got himself on the wrong side of a nation of passionate kitties.

:)

Hehe! So desu ne, so desu yo! Nya... and stuff.

You, mate, are just plain explosive. Just mixing Irish and Scottish would have sufficed.:tongue:

What's the Spanish temper like? Short fuse or big bang?

Or both? :eek:

What's the Spanish temper like? Short fuse or big bang?

Or both? :eek:

Both.

Yo soy famosa por mis cabreadas. Es que son epicas!:D

Hot Off The Press:

Bad News for Spain, I'm afraid.

If they don't IMMEDIATELY do something about this action against Bush, Bill O'Reilly says he's going to BOYCOTT them.

Poor Spain. I can feel their pain.

Add to my Spanish ancestry my Scottish, German, and Irish ancestry, and you have a recipe for a guy that gets royally pissed at the drop of a hat! :p
Drunk or angry? Probably both >_>

Hot Off The Press:

Bad News for Spain, I'm afraid.

If they don't IMMEDIATELY do something about this action against Bush, Bill O'Reilly says he's going to BOYCOTT them.

Poor Spain. I can feel their pain.

Question is, how many nutjobs in the US does Bill have influence over?

Question is, how many nutjobs in the US does Bill have influence over?

What are people in the US going to boycott? Americans cant even work up the will power to boycott something for real reasons.

Bill is just being a loud mouthed tool, as usual. Grave, you got a source? I want to see the lulz.

EDIT: Besides, what do we import from Spain that we can boycott? Wine? Who drinks wine? Sophisticated people, intellectuals, etc. And sophisticated intellectuals dont watch Bill O'riely. What do people who watch O'riely drink? PBR :p

EDIT: Besides, what do we import from Spain that we can boycott? Wine? Who drinks wine? Sophisticated people, intellectuals, etc. And sophisticated intellectuals dont watch Bill O'riely. What do people who watch O'riely drink? PBR :p

You summed my thoughts quite nicely, Trve-san.:D

What are people in the US going to boycott? Americans cant even work up the will power to boycott something for real reasons.

Bill is just being a loud mouthed tool, as usual. Grave, you got a source? I want to see the lulz.

EDIT: Besides, what do we import from Spain that we can boycott? Wine? Who drinks wine? Sophisticated people, intellectuals, etc. And sophisticated intellectuals dont watch Bill O'riely. What do people who watch O'riely drink? PBR :p

Warning - this link may cause your computer to connect with sites affiliated with O'Reilly, and may cause Fox-infected material to appear on your screen.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511814,00.html

"Finally, unless this action is condemned by Spanish or Prime Minister Zapatero, then I am not going to that country. "

What's the Spanish temper like?

Adorable.

And it stamps it's foot, too.

Warning - this link may cause your computer to connect with sites affiliated with O'Reilly, and may cause Fox-infected material to appear on your screen.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511814,00.html

Buwhahaha. What a tool. "I will not go to Spain." Oooooooh poor Spain. Hey O'riely, how about if Obama doesnt do whatever you want him to do, you leave America? That'll show us!:p

On Sunday, The New York Times reported Boye's beef, but did not report this. Boye served almost eight years in a Spanish prison for collaborating with terrorists. He was sentenced in 1996. Now that seemed to be a mighty big omission by The New York Times, does it not?

Funny, I cant find any verification of this outside of the right wing blogs.

Buwhahaha. What a tool. "I will not go to Spain." Oooooooh poor Spain. Hey O'riely, how about if Obama doesnt do whatever you want him to do, you leave America? That'll show us!:p


Do you think we could find one sympathetic person from each US state, and start being really mean to O 'Reilly until he threatens to boycott us?

*Checks http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511814,00.html

Prediction:

"This just in, Zapatero names the judge who is trying to get Bush "Person of the month". Said Zapatero: "Si O'Reilly se queda lejos de España, hago cualquiera cosa!"."

Do you think we could find one sympathetic person from each US state, and start being really mean to O 'Reilly until he threatens to boycott us?

I got IL covered.

I got IL covered.

...and, for that good a cause, I'd be willing to relocate... :D

...and, for that good a cause, I'd be willing to relocate... :D

I call Brazil.

I call Brazil.

Question:

If O'Reilly gets offended by EVERY nation on earth, is he going to boycott the whole world?

Or are we going to see a militant take over of Sealand?

I got IL covered.

I got Minnesota.

I got Minnesota.

America's penis is covered as well.

Drunk or angry? Probably both >_>

Let's call it soberly irritable. I rarely drink, and only once have I ever had more than two in one sitting.

Warning - this link may cause your computer to connect with sites affiliated with O'Reilly, and may cause Fox-infected material to appear on your screen.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511814,00.html

How does that mofo have any credibility left?

I got Minnesota.

I have New York covered.

How does that mofo have any credibility left?

It's the law of diminishing returns.

The first time you say something about rape victims bringing it on themselves, you lose a million viewers.

The next time you say something stupid - you're a million down. This audience might stomach something like that. This time, you have to tell someone who just lost a child in the war, that they're not patriotic, or something. And then you lose half a million.

Carries on for a while, you lose maybe 30 people when you talk about the media being led in a cabal by a small blog group.

O'Reilly has got to the point now, where the only way he's going to see a statistically significant drop in figures, is if he goes door to door, skullfucking his audience in their sleep.

It's the law of diminishing returns.

I'd like to start my own diminishing returns: Let's diminish the size and openability of his mouth and return him to wherever he slithered out of! :p

The first time you say something about rape victims bringing it on themselves, you lose a million viewers.

Wait. Did he say that?

Wait. Did he say that?

Given some of what I know Billo and Rush have said, that wouldn't shock me.

Given some of what I know Billo and Rush have said, that wouldn't shock me.

You know, it was always bad enough to have Rush, Hanity, and O'riely constantly spewing really dumb shit, but now Glenn Beck is all of a sudden really popular and I see him everywhere, and he got 100x crazier when he went to Fox.

You know, it was always bad enough to have Rush, Hanity, and O'riely constantly spewing really dumb shit, but now Glenn Beck is all of a sudden really popular and I see him everywhere, and he got 100x crazier when he went to Fox.

Sounds just like Rupert Murdoch: A completely unprincipled money whore. If a news network giving news from the Marxist perspective suddenly became in demand, that's what Fox News would be within seconds of Murdoch learning of it.

Wait. Did he say that?

He's apparently something of a history of blaming the victim:

"These two girls come in from the suburbs and they get bombed, and their car is towed because they're moronic girls and, you know, they don't have a car. So they're standing there in the middle of the night with no car. And then they separate because they're drunk..

"Now Moore, Jennifer Moore...She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff... So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She's walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug...
And the thug takes her over to New Jersey in the cab and kills her and rapes her and does all these terrible things to her..." (Bill O'Reilly, The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 8/2/06)

""And the question is, why didn't [11-year-old Shawn Hornbeck, kidnapped, held and raped for 4 years] escape when he could have?...The Stockholm syndrome thing, I don't buy it...The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted...I think when it all comes down, what's going to happen is, there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances." (Bill O'Reilly, Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, 1/15/07)

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-oreilly-speech-to-rape-victim-support-group

He's apparently something of a history of blaming the victim.

All the more reason to boycott his sponsors.

He's apparently something of a history of blaming the victim:

If someone shot Bill O Reilly in say, the groin, would he blame himself then I wonder?

If someone shot Bill O Reilly in say, the groin, would he blame himself then I wonder?

As far as I can tell, nothing is ever Bill's fault.

As far as I can tell, nothing is ever Bill's fault.

Only one way to find out... :sniper:

As far as I can tell, nothing is ever Bill's fault.

I'm not surprised.

I'm not surprised.

Like I said...

Only one way to find out... :sniper:

Like I said...

Use a .357 magnum round with hollowpoint tip if you can.

Hot blooded, for everything.
:eek:
http://www.cuteaddict.com/images/2007/11/09/vinnie_the_ferret_in_a_war_dance_ju.jpg
All the better for engorgement and sensation, of course.
http://www.thecuteproject.com/images/items/1290.jpg

As far as I can tell, nothing is ever Bill's fault.
Not even his speaking skills sans teleprompter.

Let's call it soberly irritable. I rarely drink, and only once have I ever had more than two in one sitting.

What? You're Irish and Scottish and you don't drink? I've just got Irish blood and I seem to have a constant hangover.

Yes, 11M was blamed on ETA. And there was intelligence, very good at that, that pointed 11M was done by terrorist cells linked to Al-Qaeda for Spain's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Osama bin Laden himself threatened the Spanish government prior to 11M happening.


11M? I thought it was called 3/11.

I completely forgot to throw that in my post: I am aware that, despite my personal feelings of apathy on the matter, the invasion of Iraq IS illegal...

Is there such thing as a legal military invasion of a country?

An impressive track record of murder, abuse, law-breaking, failure, and political blowback against the US, yes.


Of course, if one bothers to learn anything about the CIA's operations in those countries, the list might be more informative.


Yes, and look how that worked out for us: Al qaida. The Taliban.

Mm-hm, an impressive track record indeed. And of course, it's not as if we did not already know that setting up revolutionaries/rebels and then abandoning them once we got what we wanted from them would turn them into dangerous enemies. Nope, we sure couldn't have predicted that. *looks at Latin America* :rolleyes:

The CIA didn't abandon them Congress did.

Use a .357 magnum round with hollowpoint tip if you can.

*rimshot (http://www.instantrimshot.com)* :D:hail:

11M? I thought it was called 3/11.

Date systems are different in English-speaking countries and most of the rest of the world. 3/11 would be "Once de Marzo (sp)" in Spain. So, 11M or 11/3, not 3/11.

Date systems are different in English-speaking countries and most of the rest of the world. 3/11 would be "Once de Marzo (sp)" in Spain. So, 11M or 11/3, not 3/11.

Thank you for enlightening me.:hail:
Do you do what the Spanish do?

Thank you for enlightening me.:hail:
Do you do what the Spanish do?

Yes, but in Portuguese.

Yes, but in Portuguese.

Yeah, well obviously not in Spanish.

The one we're having at our borders with the African immigrants that flock our maritime borders almost every day.

Well, there's a simple soloution for that- don't let them in.:eek:

Well, there's a simple soloution for that- don't let them in.:eek:

The come across in the middle of the night in boats, so it's fairly hard to police the entire coastline.

The come across in the middle of the night in boats, so it's fairly hard to police the entire coastline.

Just close the border by sea. Put Naval ships out and stop them.

Just close the border by sea. Put Naval ships out and stop them.

Do you know how much that would cost? And I doubt the Spanish navy has enough ships to patrol every inch of the coastline.

Do you know how much that would cost? And I doubt the Spanish navy has enough ships to patrol every inch of the coastline.

They should build another Armada.

Just sink a few ships from Africa and send a message.
Or if they don't want to get in shit make a deal with Algeria or something, get them to tighten there borders.

Just sink a few ships from Africa and send a message.

They have done before. Killed a few kids etc, but people kept coming.

Or if they don't want to get in shit make a deal with Algeria or something, get them to tighten there borders.

Algeria can't stop people from the rest of Africa just walking in through the Sahara, and they can't patrol all of their coastline either.

They have done before. Killed a few kids etc, but people kept coming.

Bet they wish they had Gibraltar now.:p
Why not kill loads of them- shoot on sight kinda thing.

Algeria can't stop people from the rest of Africa just walking in through the Sahara, and they can't patrol all of their coastline either.
Well they should raise tax on boats.

All the more reason to boycott his sponsors.
A blogger recently wrote an article about his hypocrisy in re rape victims, and he sent a producer out to follow her around on her vacation and ambush her at a spa to play "gotcha" demanding that she answer questions about it. The net-press company she works for made some calls to his sponsors to ask their opinion about it, after the incident became news, and one of his biggest sponsors, UPS, told them (and made a later general press announcement, I believe), that they have withdrawn their advertising from his show because they didn't like the image he was creating.

The CIA didn't abandon them Congress did.
A distinction without a difference.

Why not kill loads of them- shoot on sight kinda thing.

Because that's illegal, and you aren't gonna find many people willing to shoot innocent civilians.

Well they should raise tax on boats.

That won't do much, and it certainly won't stop rafts, stowaways etc.

Because that's illegal, and you aren't gonna find many people willing to shoot innocent civilians.

Coming into a country without permission is illegal too ya know.
What about mines at sea?

Coming into a country without permission is illegal too ya know.

But you can't get done by the ICHR or the UN for crossing a border, whereas you can if you shoot babies.

What about mines at sea?

That would effectively seal off the Mediterranean, and take out a lot of ships that had nothing to do with immigrants.

But you can't get done by the ICHR or the UN for crossing a border, whereas you can if you shoot babies.

That's a load of bullocks. It's countries right to protect it's borders.

That would effectively seal off the Mediterranean, and take out a lot of ships that had nothing to do with immigrants.
Okay, just shell them from the land.

That's a load of bullocks. It's countries right to protect it's borders.

And it's a person's right to move to a country where they feel safe.

Okay, just shell them from the land.

Again, a waste of money, and you won't find people prepared to do that.

And it's a person's right to move to a country where they feel safe.

Not if that country does not want them.

Again, a waste of money, and you won't find people prepared to do that.

I'm sure I could.

Is there such thing as a legal military invasion of a country?

Youre confusing illegality and morality.

Not if that country does not want them.

I think that the right to be safe overcomes the right of a country to block people from their country for no real reason.

I'm sure I could.

Then you're a psychopathic nutcase.

Youre confusing illegality and morality.

There can even be moral invasions. If Britain and France had invaded Germany in 1939 for example.

I think that the right to be safe overcomes the right of a country to block people from their country for no real reason.
Is a crippled economy a good enough reason?


Then you're a psychopathic nutcase.
Nah, I din't mean that I would kill them- I'm sure I could find people who would.

There can even be moral invasions. If Britain and France had invaded Germany in 1939 for example.

In hieghnsight(spelling) it would be moral. 6million Jews saved, 20million Russians saved, ect.

Use a .357 magnum round with hollowpoint tip if you can.

Immediatly I thought: ''A bit overpowered''. I'd use a 7,62x51mm NATO. From a roof across the street where he is.

Is a crippled economy a good enough reason?

The odd couple of thousand immigrants aren't gonna cripple Spain's economy.


Nah, I din't mean that I would kill them- I'm sure I could find people who would.

Oh right.

The odd couple of thousand immigrants aren't gonna cripple Spain's economy.
Yeah but it's on it's way (like the rest of the world) anyway.



Oh right.

You didn't really think I'd kill immigrants did you?

Yeah but it's on it's way (like the rest of the world) anyway.

Not really.

You didn't really think I'd kill immigrants did you?

The way you said it, and your previous posting history made me believe that you would, actually.

The way you said it, and your previous posting history made me believe that you would, actually.

Trust me, I would never kill anyone- not even immigrants.

Trust me, I would never kill anyone

Really? Not even if they were trying to kill you.

Really? Not even if they were trying to kill you.

Oh, yeah I would.

And Im sure youre also prepared to tell me how it was illegal, especially when we take into consideration the fact that the UN currently cannot violate our sovereignty. What I mean to say is, what treaty has the US signed declaring we would not ever invade a country under the circumstances Iraq was invaded under?

The treaty wherein the US agreed to become a member of the UN, and thus agreed to cede a bit of national sovereignty, just like every other UN member.

Not that it needs to violate a treaty to be illegal, mind you. Nor does national sovereignty allow a nation to commit the crime of aggression against another nation.

Indeed, the use of force has been regulated not just in the UN charter - a charter the US have agreed to respect and adhere to, since they are a member - but also in the unwritten customary international law. And both of these sources prohibit the use of force except in self-defense (and the UN charter chapter VII gives the UNSC the authority to decide if force should be used if they have determined that a threat to international peace and security exists.

See article 42 and article 51.) (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.shtml)

Since the attack on Iraq was not in self-defence, nor was it sanctioned by the UNSC, the invasion was illegal.

Coming into a country without permission is illegal too ya know.
What about mines at sea?

I hope you see the difference between getting into the country illegally, and murdering someone, and acknowledge that there's a vast difference between the two types of crimes...

You didn't really think I'd kill immigrants did you?

I didn't.

But I readily admit that because your post history suggests to me that you're about 8 years away from being allowed legal access to firearms.

Since the attack on Iraq was not in self-defence, nor was it sanctioned by the UNSC, the invasion was illegal.
This is silly. There are not only two such pre-conditions. While it perhaps did violate the Just War principle, that does not make it illegal.

The UN does not declare itself the only way to go to war. This would be such a violation of national sovereignty that no one would join, or in doing so, would simply ignore the UN. Not that everyone listens as it is.

The problem with "unwritten customary international law" is this: enforce it. Not that I agree with your basic premise. The only governing factor in international relations is "might makes right".

This is silly. There are not only two such pre-conditions. While it perhaps did violate the Just War principle, that does not make it illegal.

The UN does not declare itself the only way to go to war. This would be such a violation of national sovereignty that no one would join, or in doing so, would simply ignore the UN. Not that everyone listens as it is.

The problem with "unwritten customary international law" is this: enforce it. Not that I agree with your basic premise. The only governing factor in international relations is "might makes right".

Nonsensical.

The rule of law is not determined by enforcability.

If it was, you could say that rape, murder, etc, are ONLY 'illegal' if you can catch the person who committed the act.

This is silly. There are not only two such pre-conditions. While it perhaps did violate the Just War principle, that does not make it illegal.
Then prove me wrong.

The UN does not declare itself the only way to go to war. This would be such a violation of national sovereignty that no one would join, or in doing so, would simply ignore the UN. Not that everyone listens as it is.

a) Actually, the UN does.


The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.shtml
Add that to the articles found in Chapter VII and you should start getting a picture.

b) "National sovereignty" doesn't work that way; it is a concept under international law that is also influenced by other factors of international law - here, the customary international law I've mentioned above, which has been codified in the UN charter.



The problem with "unwritten customary international law" is this: enforce it.
The problem is solved more easily through codification.

And it is being enforced, by the different nations throughout the world.


Not that I agree with your basic premise. The only governing factor in international relations is "might makes right".
False.

The treaty wherein the US agreed to become a member of the UN, and thus agreed to cede a bit of national sovereignty, just like every other UN member.

Not that it needs to violate a treaty to be illegal, mind you. Nor does national sovereignty allow a nation to commit the crime of aggression against another nation.

Indeed, the use of force has been regulated not just in the UN charter - a charter the US have agreed to respect and adhere to, since they are a member - but also in the unwritten customary international law. And both of these sources prohibit the use of force except in self-defense (and the UN charter chapter VII gives the UNSC the authority to decide if force should be used if they have determined that a threat to international peace and security exists.

See article 42 and article 51.) (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.shtml)

Since the attack on Iraq was not in self-defence, nor was it sanctioned by the UNSC, the invasion was illegal.

ROFL

You really need to stop beating that dead horse. :headbang:

ROFL

You really need to stop beating that dead horse. :headbang:

So even you admit it was wrong, eh?

By the way, I stand by my previous statement (look it up, page 17) : The assertion that Bush should be tried is not "offensive".

ROFL

You really need to stop beating that dead horse. :headbang:

Hmmm.... Why?

It seems like you can't actually present ANY kind of argument against it, which kind of implies that 'beating it' is simply pesenting the facts, no?

The treaty wherein the US agreed to become a member of the UN, and thus agreed to cede a bit of national sovereignty, just like every other UN member.

Not that it needs to violate a treaty to be illegal, mind you. Nor does national sovereignty allow a nation to commit the crime of aggression against another nation.

Indeed, the use of force has been regulated not just in the UN charter - a charter the US have agreed to respect and adhere to, since they are a member - but also in the unwritten customary international law. And both of these sources prohibit the use of force except in self-defense (and the UN charter chapter VII gives the UNSC the authority to decide if force should be used if they have determined that a threat to international peace and security exists.

See article 42 and article 51.) (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.shtml)

Since the attack on Iraq was not in self-defence, nor was it sanctioned by the UNSC, the invasion was illegal.


However, pretending that GWB really did believe Iraq had WMDs (not an arguement Im making, for the record), couldnt it be said that we were acting in self defense/enforcing the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty?

ROFL

You really need to stop beating that dead horse. :headbang:

Says the guy who uses the same right wing talking points in every post he makes:D

However, pretending that GWB really did believe Iraq had WMDs (not an arguement Im making, for the record), couldnt it be said that we were acting in self defense/enforcing the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty?

Given that we've breached the NPT ourselves? Repeatedly?

It would seem a little... hollow.

Hmmm.... Why?

It seems like you can't actually present ANY kind of argument against it, which kind of implies that 'beating it' is simply pesenting the facts, no?

I say we just ignore NM and keep presenting facts he doesn't like. Eventually he'll either go away to protect his warped world view or get a stroke.

I say we just ignore NM and keep presenting facts he doesn't like. Eventually he'll either go away to protect his warped world view or get a stroke.

I second this motion presented by Non Aligned States.

I second this motion presented by Non Aligned States.

I usually argue in the hopes that he'll come back and defend his assertions/debate my points.

I guess I just love disappointment:(

I usually argue in the hopes that he'll come back and defend his assertions/debate my points.

I guess I just love disappointment:(

Well, Trve-sama, how can a clueless person come and argue? You do, with all due respect, love disappointment.:tongue:

I usually argue in the hopes that he'll come back and defend his assertions/debate my points.

I guess I just love disappointment:(

You're not the only one.

However, pretending that GWB really did believe Iraq had WMDs (not an arguement Im making, for the record), couldnt it be said that we were acting in self defense/enforcing the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty?
Bush attempted to make that very argument. Many times. He failed, however, because mere belief that a threat existed does not actually amount to the clear and present danger and/or imminent threat that the law requires to justify a military attack. Let's pretend for a moment that it wasn't just a question of belief -- let's play what if Iraq actually did have WMDs. Bush would have had to prove that Hussein was about to use them against the US imminently to justify a pre-emptive strike. If the mere ability to attack were justification, then we could attack anyone -- China, the UK, anyone. We know for a fact that many of our allies have WMDs of some kind -- we have them, too -- and they are far more capable of harming us than Iraq ever was. They COULD harm the US. Should we attack them then and call it "self-defense"? Of course not.

I hope you see the difference between getting into the country illegally, and murdering someone, and acknowledge that there's a vast difference between the two types of crimes...
It's hard to say which ones worse.
I didn't.

But I readily admit that because your post history suggests to me that you're about 8 years away from being allowed legal access to firearms.

Huh? We can't get guns, we're civilised.

Huh? We can't get guns, we're civilised.

Of course we can get guns. What d'you think farmers use to shoot things with?

Of course we can get guns. What d'you think farmers use to shoot things with?

Aright, I meant that here not just anyone can get their hands on guns. Certainly not me.

Bush attempted to make that very argument. Many times. He failed, however, because mere belief that a threat existed does not actually amount to the clear and present danger and/or imminent threat that the law requires to justify a military attack. Let's pretend for a moment that it wasn't just a question of belief -- let's play what if Iraq actually did have WMDs. Bush would have had to prove that Hussein was about to use them against the US imminently to justify a pre-emptive strike. If the mere ability to attack were justification, then we could attack anyone -- China, the UK, anyone. We know for a fact that many of our allies have WMDs of some kind -- we have them, too -- and they are far more capable of harming us than Iraq ever was. They COULD harm the US. Should we attack them then and call it "self-defense"? Of course not.

What about if he had made the arguement that we were simply enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty?

Huh? We can't get guns, we're civilised.

Having spent a quarter of a century in the UK, I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the gun laws. I think you'll find there are actually quite a lot of 'legal' guns in England.

What about if he had made the arguement that we were simply enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty?

The Non-Proliferation Treaty doesn't have 'enforcement' mechanisms like that.

It would be on pretty shaky ground, anyway, given that the Nuclear Weapon States have allowed North Korea to breach the rules regarding membership, that the NWS have also acted to prevent Iran (which IS a signatory to the treaty) from following the peaceful nuclear research explicitly allowed by the treaty, and that the NWS have allowed the US to explicitly break one of the main tenets of the treaty - trading military nuclear technology with (at least) one of the non-signatory nations.

ROFL

You really need to stop beating that dead horse. :headbang:

My word.

The stunning arguments you presented made me rethink my entire position on this subject, and your glorious rhetoric mesmerized me. The expert use of "ROFL" shook my argument to its very foundations, and it even threatened to bring down my assertions like a house of cards on fire.

When you continued to demolish my post with your extremely wise saying you're arrogantly brandishing your top-notch lawyer skills for the world to see, and I must admit that I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw how you adressed each and every point I had made in one fell swoop and made them all irrelevant.

Unfortunately, my impression of your response was shattered when I gazed upon your use of the headbang-smilie at the very end. For alas; woe, it does not suit the hitherto perfect post preceding it since it signifies that you lack the words to express your thoughts and feelings on this matter. It's kinda sad, really. If you had only used a different smilie I might have been turned and furiously argued against the notion that the invasion of Iraq was illegal until the end of time.

However, pretending that GWB really did believe Iraq had WMDs (not an arguement Im making, for the record), couldnt it be said that we were acting in self defense/enforcing the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty?
No, it couldn't.

See what Muravyets has to say about the self-defence issue. It's right on the money.

When it comes to "enforcing the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty" the answer is still no, and for the same reason that it couldn't be said that the US were just enforcing UNSC resolution 1441.

Neither the treaty or the resolution gives the US the authority to act on behalf of the international community to enforce it. For the treaty, there's no provisions in it that allows any party to use force against other nations that are in breach.

And the use of force is, as I've said before, strictly regulated under the UN charter. A single member state has no opportunity to act before the UNSC has determined the existence of a threat to peace and security under chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations - unless of course it is in self defence or another legitimate reason for the use of force. That was, however, not the case in this instance for the reasons mentioned above.

It is the job of the Security Council as a whole—and not individual member states—to determine when a resolution had been breached and how to enforce it. No member state has the right to act independently and unilaterally on the United Nations' behalf.

That's also the reason for the furious diplomatic activity concerning Iran today.

It's hard to say which ones worse.


No, no, it really isn't.

My word.

The stunning arguments you presented made me rethink my entire position on this subject, and your glorious rhetoric mesmerized me. The expert use of "ROFL" shook my argument to its very foundations, and it even threatened to bring down my assertions like a house of cards on fire.

When you continued to demolish my post with your extremely wise saying you're arrogantly brandishing your top-notch lawyer skills for the world to see, and I must admit that I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw how you adressed each and every point I had made in one fell swoop and made them all irrelevant.

Unfortunately, my impression of your response was shattered when I gazed upon your use of the headbang-smilie at the very end. For alas; woe, it does not suit the hitherto perfect post preceding it since it signifies that you lack the words to express your thoughts and feelings on this matter. It's kinda sad, really. If you had only used a different smilie I might have been turned and furiously argued against the notion that the invasion of Iraq was illegal until the end of time.
:fluffle:

Really, I wish I could sig this whole thing:D

:fluffle:

Really, I wish I could sig this whole thing:D

On the subject of sigs... please stop invoking the father of modern computer science. I don't care what he does to leaves.

On the subject of sigs... please stop invoking the father of modern computer science. I don't care what he does to leaves.

Huh?

Huh?

Google "father of modern computer science". Examine Sig. Compare.

:D

What about if he had made the arguement that we were simply enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty?
He did make that argument. It was bullshit. It was not the US's job, nor did it have any authority, to unilaterally enforce that treaty by military intervention. As others have pointed out, the Non-Proliferation treaty offers no justification for a military attack that was clearly unrelated to it or any of its provisions.

Also, you misspelled "turning."

He did make that argument. It was bullshit. It was not the US's job, nor did it have any authority, to unilaterally enforce that treaty by military intervention. As others have pointed out, the Non-Proliferation treaty offers no justification for a military attack that was clearly unrelated to it or any of its provisions.
Fair enough. Im just bored.
Also, you misspelled "turning."
Eh?

Edit: oh, my sig. Thanks. Taking that out anyway. Everyone important now knows :p