Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Will, that is the same page you linked in your original post, which I have spent many posts and many days proving is incorrect. By its very definition, once the terms of a ceasefire are broken you are permitted to start shooting again. That is why it is called a ceasefire instaed of a peace treaty.
|
Normal ceasefires are like that, but not with the UN. It's very bureaucratic by nature, and requires a great deal of deliberation in order to make any action. If a ceasefire is broken, then the UN creates another resolution to deal with it. They don't fall back on the previous agreement, which was finished once the ceasefire started.
That article is written by professional lawyers who deal with this type of law. Everything I've read confirms what they postulate and conclude. I'm a layman, of course, but I cannot find an error in their letter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Gitmo is in a state of transition right now, in which almost all of the detainees need to be re-charged as illegal enemy combatants. Where it goes from there is anyones guess, but it will be according to the rule of law, as recent rulings have shown.
|
That hardly explains how Gitmo was allowed happen in the first place. I'm not even sure how we can have a military base on the land of an unfriendly country. Is it simply because the Cubans can't do shit? If that's the case (you're going to love this), the base is there illegally.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Well, if you are appealing to the ignorance of the readers here then it is even more reason to be very careful about accusations on that level. Who knows what the prols might think, eh?
|
It's not an appeal to ignorance any more than using Apollo instead of Hermod is an appeal to ignorance. No one knows everything, and just because I happened to been fascinated with the Germanic mythological figure of Hermod when I was younger doesn't mean everyone is going to know what the hell I'm talking about. More people are familiar with Apollo, so I'd use Apollo. Likewise, when mentioning things like increasing executive powers leading to autocracy, what's the most commonly known example? Nazi Germany! So there you have it.
Prols?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Racism and murder? What are you refering to exactly?
|
I'm sure you're familiar with Homeland Security's policies when it comes to racial profiling Arab Americans. There have bee stories about it on and off since 9/11. It's racist. A terrorist can be of any race, gender, or creed. Murder? 600,000-1,000,000 people are dead in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. Many, many of those are civilians (60,000-750,000, depending on who you ask). There have been interviews with soldiers coming back from Iraq where they've described being ordered to shoot at unarmed cars. There was one such interview on Democracy Now about a year back.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Presidents have always fought for more power. The line item veto for example. I don't recall any being compared to Hitler for it. Now granted, Bush has done some things that are unprecedented, but so was the 9/11 attack, so I would expect a bit of a shake up. The real blame lies on the other two branches of government for allowing his actions.
|
Presidents have not always fought for more power. Bad president have fought for more power. Washington, Adams, Jefferson; I could name plenty of presidents who didn't fight for more power. Shoot, Carter didn't fight for more power.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
So by enacting UN 687 we are directly responsible for every death that resulted since the invasion? Who is responsible for all of the deaths in Iraq prior to the invasion then? Would that be the UN, or is that also the United States fault for not miracling Hussien out of power before he killed so many Kurds and Shia?
|
Compare the likely death toll in Iraq had we not invaded with the numbers now. Saddam was an evil son of a bitch, but there's no way he had the means to start a civil war that would have resulted in the deaths of a million Iraqis. Why would he have wanted to?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
This unto itself is not expansionist, we lay no claim to any territory outside our national boundaries. Yes, our military has global reach, and I would put to you that the world has been better off for it over the past 60 years.
|
I'm sure that the previous inhabitants of Diego Garcia would love for you to explain to them why that's true.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Bush did not steal 2 elections. He did not have the means. To suggest that is to suggest that an individual is more powerful than the institutions and laws of our country. The election iof 2000 was decided 7-2 by the Supreme Court. Bush was (unfortunately) just as valid as John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Grover Cleveland. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal. The 2004 election was the first election since 1988 that a candidate recieved a majority of the popular vote, and since Kerry did not dispute Ohio, I would say Bush won that one hands down.
The idea is to brow beat the reader with the most severe case possible, so that any rational discourse is buried under the rhetoric and hysteria.
|
I'll give you links to reading on this subject below. Both elections were stolen for him.
This is an amazing article from Rolling Stone that will either convince you, or put you into denial. Most people I've shown the article to have come away with the understanding that the election was stolen.
Check out "unprecedented: the 2000 presidential election" on youtuve. It's an interesting video.