WorldBench Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 haha atleast someone said it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 So, shrooms user...... “I didn't say I liked them, again you can't read.” Your exact quote is that you “support most of what they do.” So let me rephrase my original question- you support most of what the MEK does, but you don’t like the US bankrolling or enabling them to do it? Also do you expect kids to overpower the revolutionary guard, savak, etc on their own? Maybe spiderman can help them instead of the great satan or zionist jew scum. I said I support most of what they do as a reference to most left wing 'revolutionary' groups, in particular the RE of Athens. I do not support groups who take funds from the US. ”They were not UN sanctions they were US sanctions” They were UN economic sanctions, re-read that wikipedia article, or have someone literate read it to you. You understand what the UN is, and the security council, their power to sanction and how that process works, right? Like I already said, you don't know how the UN/US relationship works but I will give you a quick lesson because you are clearly stupid about this like everything else you have talked about. If the US want something nine times out of ten they get it. They were sanctions on behalf of the US, that is understood by everyone. ”Which says nothing of the original and continued crime.” No it says a lot. The UN has had a mission in iraq (which the freedom fighting resistance leader zarqawi bombed, which is his right with all international laws to resist the foreigners of course), and the UN established the mandate for the MNF-I occupation (which you apparently don’t understand the meaning of). A UN mandate after the fact is irrelevant and again shows you don't have the slightest idea about how the world works. I will even quote for you "..to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole". You can’t just say everything that pops into your head is international law and then ignore or deny what the actual international law is/what the UN does (even if the UN doesn’t have the benefit of being as smart and awesome as you). Adhering to International laws, Nuremberg Principles and basic moral truisms is not the same as day to day UN mandates, these are not fundamental international laws, nor are these laws and morals subordinate to the day to day relations of the UN and US. I could give you examples but you are too stupid to understand even this much Wait, actually you can, because you're an slow witted guy also afflicted with a nasty case of the dyslexia, compounded with being totally ignorant of seemingly everything you talk about. Its ok though, I wouldn’t expect you to admit you’re wrong. You have lost every single argument please give up small boy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 “A UN mandate after the fact is irrelevant” You simply calling it irrelevant isn’t much of an argument. The fact that the UN doesn’t think this "..to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" applies, means it does not apply according to international law. Your personal opinion or “moral truisms” is the part that’s irrelevant, because you don’t determine international law. ”you don't know how the UN/US relationship works…. If the US want something nine times out of ten they get it” Like UN support for the invasion of Iraq? Uh oh. You know what the security council is and their role in determining sanctions, and how their decision process works? I know the professor probably left out the UN’s role when he was explaining the evils of the US, so all this must be very frightening and new for you. But it’s not a point of debate that these were UN sanctions, its just a fact that’s apparently very hard for some people to accept. The security council passed resolution 661 http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/575/11/IMG/NR057511.pdf?OpenElement , and later decided not to lift the sanctions after the end of the gulf war. Did the US want the sanctions? Did they also want to uphold them for the duration of saddam’s regime? Sure. But they aren’t the entity that decides or carries it out, they didn’t single handedly set in place or enforce the sanctions on their own. Keep replying with the same argument, it doesn’t change history. Your entire argument is that I’m stupid, that I "lost", and I’m some sort of “small boy.” Very convincing. Are you going to challenge me to a pokemon showdown next? And why are you always talking about “small boys”, as if this is the ultimate mortal combat interweb finishing move. Do you have to introduce yourself door to door whenever you move in to a new neighborhood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 “A UN mandate after the fact is irrelevant” You simply calling it irrelevant isn’t much of an argument. The fact that the UN doesn’t think this "..to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" applies, means it does not apply according to international law. Your personal opinion or “moral truisms” is the part that’s irrelevant, because you don’t determine international law. You are wrong and have already lost little guy ”you don't know how the UN/US relationship works…. If the US want something nine times out of ten they get it” Like UN support for the invasion of Iraq? Uh oh. No, they didn't. You know what the security council is and their role in determining sanctions, and how their decision process works? I know the professor probably left out the UN’s role when he was explaining the evils of the US, so all this must be very frightening and new for you. But it’s not a point of debate that these were UN sanctions, its just a fact that’s apparently very hard for some people to accept. The security council passed resolution 661 http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/575/11/IMG/NR057511.pdf?OpenElement , and later decided not to lift the sanctions after the end of the gulf war. Did the US want the sanctions? Did they also want to uphold them for the duration of saddam’s regime? Sure. But they aren’t the entity that decides or carries it out, they didn’t single handedly set in place or enforce the sanctions on their own. Keep replying with the same argument, it doesn’t change history. Again and again you are wrong. I have already said the sanctions through the 90s against Iraq were solely dictated by the US, everyone understands this from left wing dissidents through to the most hard line right wing economic conservatives and both will openly tell you so. Like I have said however about three times now is that you don't have the slightest inkling on how the UN works. Your entire argument is that I’m stupid, that I "lost", and I’m some sort of “small boy.” Very convincing. Are you going to challenge me to a pokemon showdown next? And why are you always talking about “small boys”, as if this is the ultimate mortal combat interweb finishing move. Do you have to introduce yourself door to door whenever you move in to a new neighborhood? You have lost this argument young man due to your lack of knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Ok, I’m a pretty open minded guy, so I took to heart your accusation that I don’t have the “slightest inkling on how the UN works”. So I looked it up on howstuffworks.com, and apparently, in some crazy twist of events and fate, I was correct. http://people.howstuffworks.com/united-nations3.htm The Security council has five permanent members (Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States) and 10 members elected by the general assembly that serve two-year terms (currently Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, German, Guinea, Mexico, Pakistan, Spain and Syria). Historically, this organization was developed to encourage all of the allies from WWII to participate in the new United Nations when it was forming. On important matters, it is necessary to get nine members of the Security Council to agree. Unlike the General Assembly, the Security Council is able to actively enforce its decisions. It can use economic sanctions or deploy forces as described in the U.N. Charter: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. The forces used are all contributed by the member nations and form coalitions that serve the commanders chosen by the Security Council. The Charter spells this out as well: All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. You can see that, when all members of the Security Council decide that force is needed, the United Nations can bring together an impressive arsenal to solve international problems. That is what happened in the 1991 Gulf War. In the next section, we'll discuss the other U.N. organs. So, to get everything nice and simple: the UN security council voted on, and passed resolution 661, the economic sanctions in question. The security council requires voting (there is also an article on howstuffworks.com about voting if you are confused). This “voting” concept the UN has, and the nature of the security council you just learned about, make the notion that the sanctions were “solely dictated by the US” impossible. Feel free to continue saying “NO”, as convincing as that is, its not going to change the historical record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 You are wrong and have already lost little guy Please stop denigrating my physical stature. It is injuring my already fragile self esteem, and is very mean and hurtful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooth bruce Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Ok, I’m a pretty open minded guy, so I took to heart your accusation that I don’t have the “slightest inkling on how the UN works”. So I looked it up on howstuffworks.com, and apparently, in some crazy twist of events and fate, I was correct. http://people.howstuffworks.com/united-nations3.htm So, to get everything nice and simple: the UN security council voted on, and passed resolution 661, the economic sanctions in question. The security council requires voting (there is also an article on howstuffworks.com about voting if you are confused). This “voting” concept the UN has, and the nature of the security council you just learned about, make the notion that the sanctions were “solely dictated by the US” impossible. Feel free to continue saying “NO”, as convincing as that is, its not going to change the historical record. Again you have just highlighted exactly how little you know about the UN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 The only thing any of those international organizations are put in place for, are to protect U.S. interests, and insure our dominance of the third world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Again you have just highlighted exactly how little you know about the UN. Yeah, and neither does the UN apparently, seeing as their charter was the bulk of what I posted above. Someone should also tell them to take down their resolution voting on and passing the economic sanctions from their website, since they were really US sanctions all along. But don’t let minor inconveniences like facts get in your way from 0wN1nG me hella bad... just keep right on repeating “you don’t know about the UN” over and over and over. It’s a convincing argument! Now go ahead and write a 5,000 word reply on how I’m a small boy you may or may not want to make sweet love to, your superior dancin n graphin skilz, and how you won the game with a 6-14 spread. I am pretty sure you are a 12oz regular having a little fun on a new screen name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunt double Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 you know sadaam killed his own people....fuck....hitler didnt even kill his own people... the american soldiers care more about the iraqis than sadaam ever did....this is so obvious when you look at the amount of poverty in the country ...while sadaam has gold toilets and like 30 sports cars and like 13 or 14 royal palaces. i just wanted to point these two statements out, "hitler didn't kill his own people?" come on now. this is the most uninformed opinon i have ever heard. hitler killed thousands of jewish germans, german homosexuals, german communists, german people with disabilities, fucking hell... you cant just state something that is entirely untrue purely for effect. and the wealth divide in iraq? what, iraq is the only plutocracy in the world? you make it out like bush is a president of the people... how many houses does he have? how many cars, boats, planes? now how many americans are there with no health insurance? yeah, good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 pretty sad. arming anti-Iranian-government militias inside Iran would make us no better than Iranians arming anti-US forces. that would make the US a hypocrite since they'd be sponsoring terrorism. one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. No doubt...Friggin' US bullies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 As far as this thread goes. Purple Mushroom is basically saying everything I would, and more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.