TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Guantanamo Is Closing
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo whoever taught you history should lose their tenure.

Pointless comment.

quote:

do you know what the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is?

Pointless question.

quote:

did you know that the ICC with regards to aggression is determinate by the UN Security Council?

The UN Security Council will not deem the illegal invasion of Iraq as a war of aggression. Why? Guess whose got veto power? Anyone with a proper understanding of international politics can most certainly deem the invasion of Iraq as a war of aggression without having some definitive ruling by the Security Council.

quote:

did you know Iraq was found repeatedly in violation of a Security Council ceasefire in 2003?

Irrelevant. The Security Council never authorized the US or any other country to be the enforcer/policeman of its decisions.

quote:

i amusingly realize none of that matters to you because you are consumed with hate. good luck with that, but i've told you before it clouds your judgement

I amusingly realize you routinely go offtrack into irrelevant personal comments. It clouds your judgment. Never mind it looks desperate on your part......I know not supporting the destruction of a country is unpatriotic, or as you say, I am full of hate for not approving of the deaths of a multitude of people by our own hands. I couldn't give a flying fuck about patriotism or blind obedience to my corrupt government...have fun with that...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Pointless comment.

nope. the point is that you just can't pick and choose certain points throughout history and expect them alone to justify your position. you do it all the time. it's just an intellectually shallow way have a opinion on something.

quote:

Pointless question.

but thats what ultimately adjudicates aggression, right?

quote:

The UN Security Council will not deem the illegal invasion of Iraq as a war of aggression. Why?

IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT IRAQ WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL'S OWN CEASEFIRE, COULD IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no Krypton, your opinions and historical myopia is what's irrelevant here.

quote:

The Security Council never authorized the US or any other country to be the enforcer/policeman of its decisions.

they're not required to. the US or any other country is allowed protect herself from threats and enforce UN resolutions on their own. thats nowhere close to being aggression

quote:

I couldn't give a flying fuck about patriotism or blind obedience to my corrupt government...have fun with that...

you are a stupid, stupid kid

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo nope. the point is that you just can't pick and choose certain points throughout history and expect them alone to justify your position. you do it all the time. it's just an intellectually shallow way have a opinion on something.

Uh huh. Another personal comment. Is that all you'v got? I'm intellectually shallow? LOL...I could care less what you think about my intellect.

quote:

but thats what ultimately adjudicates aggression, right?

Why are you asking me? What's your point?

quote:

IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT IRAQ WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL'S OWN CEASEFIRE, COULD IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Iraq's violation of a ceasefire...on it's own soil, but the way...justifies the US violating the Security Council too huh? Two wrongs make a right apparently.

quote:

no Krypton, your opinions and historical myopia is what's irrelevant here.

Your pointless personal comments do not help your case whatsoever.

quote:

they're not required to. the US or any other country is allowed protect herself from threats and enforce UN resolutions on their own. thats nowhere close to being aggression

Protect herself huh? From who? IRAQ?!?! That's laughable. And no, no country has the right to enforce a UN resolution on their own without UN Security Council approval. You'r flat out wrong.

quote:

you are a stupid, stupid kid

Riiiiight...Sorry I'm not a blind patriotic SOB to a corrupt government. Actually, no I'm not...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Uh huh. Another personal comment. Is that all you'v got? I'm intellectually shallow? LOL...I could care less what you think about my intellect.

alright. just please never bring up Nuremberg unless, 1) you're talking about Nazis, 2) you can further illustrate the Nuremberg principles and their role in shaping modern International law.

quote:

Why are you asking me? What's your point?

it's the document that established the International Criminal Court. courts determine legal stuff. you know, stuff thats either illegal or legal.

quote:

Iraq's violation of a ceasefire...on it's own soil, but the way...justifies the US violating the Security Council too huh?

yes.

quote:

Your pointless personal comments do not help your case whatsoever.

youre right, it just makes me feel better.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo alright. just please never bring up Nuremberg unless, 1) you're talking about Nazis, 2) you can further illustrate the Nuremberg principles and their role in shaping modern International law.

The Nuremburg Trials established the international crime of initiating a war of aggression. I know you'd like us to be able to invade whatever countries we want, but sorry, that's not the case.

quote:

it's the document that established the International Criminal Court. courts determine legal stuff. you know, stuff thats either illegal or legal.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT!?

quote:

yes.

No wonder you believe a ridiculous notion of a right to unilateral initiation of a war of aggression.

quote:

youre right, it just makes me feel better.

Makes you look stupid...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The Nuremburg Trials established the international crime of initiating a war of aggression.

no shit Sherlock but it is not binding statute. it's a precedent that had a profound effect on shaping modern International law. what happened in Nuremburg, Germany 1946 is only small part in the incoherent argument youre trying to make

quote:

I know you'd like us to be able to invade whatever countries we want, but sorry, that's not the case.

no i don't. i just want ignorant kids to either take a deeper look into how history shapes the world and politics we live in or stfu and play video games and not get involved in politics at all.

quote:

WHAT IS YOUR POINT!?

well i just asked asked you what the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was (the actual internationally binding statutes and not fucking Nuremburg ) but in your infinite wisdom seemed to think was pointless and refused to anwer.

quote:

No wonder you believe a ridiculous notion of a right to unilateral initiation of a war of aggression.

two things. 1) Operation Iraqi Freedom was not unilateral, 2) in order to make definitive statements about aggression you have to know the current laws applicable.

quote:

Makes you look stupid...

i'm fine with my ad hominems making me look stupid. in your case it's the content of what you say that makes you look stupid

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo that you're not in ANY position intellectually to determine wtf is "misleading" or not.

Ok, thanks for establishing that.

quote:

the problem here is you and other followers of the agenda (read, sheep) think public perception is the law. thats just not the case. you and the followers irrationally believe that somehow if you scream loud enough you become the law.

Ah, the "sheep" coin. Cute play from a guy who'd blindly follow Cheney to the grave.

I think you have a persistent problem with identifying the arguments of others. I've never even discussed Guantanamo from a legal perspective, and my comment here has nothing to do with the law. Why bring it up? Public perception is an important tool of public diplomacy, and when Guantanamo stands out (rightly or wrongly) as a blight on the American reputation, maybe it's time to start re-evaluating our priorities.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo youre right, it just makes me feel better. i'm fine with my ad hominems making me look stupid. in your case it's the content of what you say that makes you look stupid

anyway, i think people should be nicer to Q5. he's like the only GOP representative we have that isn't drowning in idiocy, blowing his legs off with shotguns, or fucking his sister.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov when Guantanamo stands out (rightly or wrongly) as a blight on the American reputation, maybe it's time to start re-evaluating our priorities.

i have no problem re-evaluating priorities. i have a problem with the ranking system.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i have no problem re-evaluating priorities. i have a problem with the ranking system.

Well, that's a philosophical difference - you're a realist and I'm a liberal internationalist - nothing new there.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no shit Sherlock but it is not binding statute. it's a precedent that had a profound effect on shaping modern International law. what happened in Nuremburg, Germany 1946 is only small part in the incoherent argument youre trying to make

IT IS BINDING. NO COUNTRY IS ALLOWED TO INITIATE A WAR OF AGGRESSION PERIOD.

quote:

no i don't. i just want ignorant kids to either take a deeper look into how history shapes the world and politics we live in or stfu and play video games and not get involved in politics at all.

Right, if my country decides to bomb the fuck out of some shithole third world country, I should be gung ho, or else I'm not patriotic enough...fuck off...

quote:

well i just asked asked you what the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was (the actual internationally binding statutes and not fucking Nuremburg ) but in your infinite wisdom seemed to think was pointless and refused to anwer.

Irrelevant question. You made no point. Do you know what the UN Charter is smart one?

quote:

two things. 1) Operation Iraqi Freedom was not unilateral, 2) in order to make definitive statements about aggression you have to know the current laws applicable.

Operation Iraqi Freedom WAS unilateral. The US asked for Security Council approval, and was promptly denied that approval. I don't need a court order to know when something wrong like a war of aggression has been committed. The war was unjustified, immoral, and just plain stupid.

quote:

i'm fine with my ad hominems making me look stupid. in your case it's the content of what you say that makes you look stupid

Riiight. But you seem to only be able to counter with ad hominems. Amusing..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton IT IS BINDING. NO COUNTRY IS ALLOWED TO INITIATE A WAR OF AGGRESSION PERIOD.

tell me this, how can military tribunal have jurisdiction over anything civilian?

...and if it is binding statute, do you have the statute number?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo tell me this, how can military tribunal have jurisdiction over anything civilian? ...and if it is binding statute, do you have the statute number?

Q, initiating a war of aggression is wrong, has been prosecuted before, and laid out in the UN Charter, is the abolition of such wars. I don't get why you are so adamantly defending such abhorrent actions. War is hell. Unjustified war is the worst of the worst. If all the people killed and made refugees doesn't shock, I'd have to think you like war.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Q, initiating a war of aggression is wrong, has been prosecuted before, and laid out in the UN Charter, is the abolition of such wars. I don't get why you are so adamantly defending such abhorrent actions. War is hell. Unjustified war is the worst of the worst. If all the people killed and made refugees doesn't shock, I'd have to think you like war.

Alright we'll try another question. If Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war of aggression, what was our motive?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Alright we'll try another question. If Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war of aggression, what was our motive?

oh come on, you dont need a motive for a war of aggression. you might just not like the colour of the guy on the other part of the map

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Alright we'll try another question. If Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war of aggression, what was our motive?

The motive is outlined in the Project for a New American Century.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The motive is outlined in the Project for a New American Century.

Do you have a link? Haha, just kidding

No srsly, I limit myself to one full page of hijacking so take from this absurd convo what you will.

I'll leave you with one last question. The PNAC statement of principles covers a host of things. Can you be more specific?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo I hate brown people

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo The PNAC statement of principles covers a host of things. Can you be more specific?

i believe it was a document the schemers of 911 published to cryptically reveal all their plans ahead of time.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh come on, you dont need a motive for a war of aggression. you might just not like the colour of the guy on the other part of the map

I hate brown people

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Do you have a link? Haha, just kidding No srsly, I limit myself to one full page of hijacking so take from this absurd convo what you will.

I think Guantanamo certainly does tie in to this "war on terror", which the invasion of Iraq was claimed to be a part of. The torture committed at Guantanamo occurred also in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, we'r talking about the Bush Administration's war crimes, or in your opinion, lack thereof, so this debate we'r having is completely relevant. Not hijacking...

quote:

I'll leave you with one last question. The PNAC statement of principles covers a host of things. Can you be more specific?

Statement on Post-War Iraq

March 19, 2003

The removal of the present Iraqi regime from power will lay the foundation for achieving three vital goals: disarming Iraq of all its weapons of mass destruction stocks and production capabilities; establishing a peaceful, stable, democratic government in Iraq; and contributing to the democratic development of the wider Middle East.

------------------------------------------------------

1. Disarming Iraq of all its weapons of mass destruction stock and production capabilities.

Numerous sources, both inside our intelligence agencies, and outside have documented evidence that the Bush Administration was told of the lack of credible intelligence regarding supposed WMDs, or lack thereof, but the Administration had already made up their minds. They told their people, "find the intelligence".

2. Establishing a peaceful, stable, democratic government in Iraq.

Can we call this...democratic imperialism? Imagine a world in which any country decided to invade another to establish some ideal form of government, friendly not to the native nation, but to that of the occupying power. You know, the UN was established for a reason...

3. Contributing to the democratic development of the wider Middle East.

Something comes to mind...Hmm...I wonder what it is...





-------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly, the previous administration is guilty of war crimes. Torture at Guantanamo and initiating a war of aggression.

Here is a good book...lays it all out with all the legalese you could ever ask for...too bad it only covers impeachment...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.