Lander,
If you had the power to do so, would you actually bring war crimes charges against the President of the United States and have him thrown in prison. If so, what would be the legal basis? What specific UN resolution did Bush violate? What prisoners captured in Iraq were executed? What specific provision of the Geneva convention was intentionally violated? What evidence could you provide that civilians were intentionally targeted? What illegal weapons of mass destruction did the US use?
If you had the power to do so, would you actually bring war crimes charges against the President of the United States and have him thrown in prison. If so, what would be the legal basis? What specific UN resolution did Bush violate? What prisoners captured in Iraq were executed? What specific provision of the Geneva convention was intentionally violated? What evidence could you provide that civilians were intentionally targeted? What illegal weapons of mass destruction did the US use?
Patriot,
Sadly you are correct. They are for human rights, but only when the human rights are violated by right wing or centrist governments. When left wing, or Muslim, nations violate human rights, the Landers of the world have nothing to say about it. No calls for Mugabe to be charged with War Crimes, or the governments in places like Libya, Yemen or the Sudan, the latter of whom still has open SLAVERY and the UN does nothing. DI you know that there is still organized slavery in the Sudan? But since it's black on black slavery, no one at the UN seems to be all that offended. In fact, the UN voted the US off the UN Human Rights Committee because of our stance on the death penalty, but Sudan gets to keep their seat. And this is the governing body that the liberals want running the world. It's a f&cking joke.
Sadly you are correct. They are for human rights, but only when the human rights are violated by right wing or centrist governments. When left wing, or Muslim, nations violate human rights, the Landers of the world have nothing to say about it. No calls for Mugabe to be charged with War Crimes, or the governments in places like Libya, Yemen or the Sudan, the latter of whom still has open SLAVERY and the UN does nothing. DI you know that there is still organized slavery in the Sudan? But since it's black on black slavery, no one at the UN seems to be all that offended. In fact, the UN voted the US off the UN Human Rights Committee because of our stance on the death penalty, but Sudan gets to keep their seat. And this is the governing body that the liberals want running the world. It's a f&cking joke.
San Jose is yet another internet tough guy ...
Sit here and yap, yap, yap ...
but the truth is if he weren't such a pussy he'd be out fighting for what he believes in, no?
I'll address your assinine questions tomorrow - I have some freelance work to wrap up, and besides, I'm sure you have a trailor to attend to.
Sit here and yap, yap, yap ...
but the truth is if he weren't such a pussy he'd be out fighting for what he believes in, no?
I'll address your assinine questions tomorrow - I have some freelance work to wrap up, and besides, I'm sure you have a trailor to attend to.
Lander,
A trailor to attend to? Yeah, I seem like an uneducated guy.
Internet tough guy? Pussy? Look, we're not gonna go down that path are we? I know it must be difficult for you to lose arguments to me on a consistent basis, especially in light of your "superiority complex" because you're from New York City instead of the backwards South, but must you resort to name calling and attempts to anger me into a confrontation?
So, if you're internet tough guy/pussy reference means what I think you're trying to say to me, well, being that we both know you are the computer administrator of this site, it would be very easy for you to find me since you obviously know me and my locale.
But, on the off chance that you were trying to make the ridiculous argument that I'm not qualified to be "pro-war" because I'm not in the military, that is downright laughable. Using your rationale, only current or former veterans would be able to vote in favor of military action. That would mean that we'd have to disqualify past US Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, FDR, etc...right?
A trailor to attend to? Yeah, I seem like an uneducated guy.
Internet tough guy? Pussy? Look, we're not gonna go down that path are we? I know it must be difficult for you to lose arguments to me on a consistent basis, especially in light of your "superiority complex" because you're from New York City instead of the backwards South, but must you resort to name calling and attempts to anger me into a confrontation?
So, if you're internet tough guy/pussy reference means what I think you're trying to say to me, well, being that we both know you are the computer administrator of this site, it would be very easy for you to find me since you obviously know me and my locale.
But, on the off chance that you were trying to make the ridiculous argument that I'm not qualified to be "pro-war" because I'm not in the military, that is downright laughable. Using your rationale, only current or former veterans would be able to vote in favor of military action. That would mean that we'd have to disqualify past US Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, FDR, etc...right?
I know it must be difficult for you to lose arguments to me on a consistent basis
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Posts: 95 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Doesn't like like you do much of anything consistantly. Either -
1. you're hiding behind a ghost name
2. you're amusing yourself with delusions
3. you're simply mistaken
especially in light of your "superiority complex" because you're from New York City instead of the backwards South, but must you resort to name calling and attempts to anger me into a confrontation?
First, I'm not from New York City, although I worked there for a few years and am rather familiar with Manhattan. I don't consider the South to be "backwards", rather I consider it to be slower, slower in many respects.
Second, I thought I clearly explained this to you - "I'll address your assinine questions tomorrow - I have some freelance work to wrap up". If you can't digest the meaning, I'll be more than happy to reword it for you - I have work to do, so let's debate this more specifically tomorrow.
well, being that we both know you are the computer administrator of this site, it would be very easy for you to find me since you obviously know me and my locale.
I'm not the computer administrator for this site or any other. I'm 'merely' a software developer. It's a dicipline based much, but not completely, upon patterns, set theory and state.
But, on the off chance that you were trying to make the ridiculous argument that I'm not qualified to be "pro-war" because I'm not in the military, that is downright laughable. Using your rationale, only current or former veterans would be able to vote in favor of military action. That would mean that we'd have to disqualify past US Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, FDR, etc...right?
Using "my rationale"? Again, for the third time in as many paragraphs you are mistaken. "My rationale" is that this is an unjust and illegal war. Millions of protestors apparently have the same "rationale", so maybe you should open your eyes to the opposing view. You might not agree, but you might learn a thing or two about reasoning.
So, just to give you so more food for thought, my background is that I am ultra-conservative, both fiscally and ethically. Kind of distorts that "stupid liberal" stereotype that some of the right wingers like to toss around in the face of dissent?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Posts: 95 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1. you're hiding behind a ghost name
2. you're amusing yourself with delusions
3. you're simply mistaken
especially in light of your "superiority complex" because you're from New York City instead of the backwards South, but must you resort to name calling and attempts to anger me into a confrontation?
First, I'm not from New York City, although I worked there for a few years and am rather familiar with Manhattan. I don't consider the South to be "backwards", rather I consider it to be slower, slower in many respects.
Second, I thought I clearly explained this to you - "I'll address your assinine questions tomorrow - I have some freelance work to wrap up". If you can't digest the meaning, I'll be more than happy to reword it for you - I have work to do, so let's debate this more specifically tomorrow.
well, being that we both know you are the computer administrator of this site, it would be very easy for you to find me since you obviously know me and my locale.
I'm not the computer administrator for this site or any other. I'm 'merely' a software developer. It's a dicipline based much, but not completely, upon patterns, set theory and state.
But, on the off chance that you were trying to make the ridiculous argument that I'm not qualified to be "pro-war" because I'm not in the military, that is downright laughable. Using your rationale, only current or former veterans would be able to vote in favor of military action. That would mean that we'd have to disqualify past US Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, FDR, etc...right?
Using "my rationale"? Again, for the third time in as many paragraphs you are mistaken. "My rationale" is that this is an unjust and illegal war. Millions of protestors apparently have the same "rationale", so maybe you should open your eyes to the opposing view. You might not agree, but you might learn a thing or two about reasoning.
So, just to give you so more food for thought, my background is that I am ultra-conservative, both fiscally and ethically. Kind of distorts that "stupid liberal" stereotype that some of the right wingers like to toss around in the face of dissent?
Lander,
Simple yes or no answer, can a person who has not served in the military take a pro-war stance, because you seem to be saying that their position would then be illegitimate.
As to not being an administrator of the site...I can prove it if you want, but I think neither of us wants to get into that kind of pissing match. Just give me your e-mail address and send you an e-mail explaining how I could prove it, that way you can go back and close the loopholes that I found through the search functions on this site.
Simple yes or no answer, can a person who has not served in the military take a pro-war stance, because you seem to be saying that their position would then be illegitimate.
As to not being an administrator of the site...I can prove it if you want, but I think neither of us wants to get into that kind of pissing match. Just give me your e-mail address and send you an e-mail explaining how I could prove it, that way you can go back and close the loopholes that I found through the search functions on this site.
Lander,
Wow, you are even sicker than I thought. I feel for you.
To answer your question, President Bush will be put on 'trial' in early Novemeber of 2004. The trial will be conducted by the American voters and he will be found 'not guilty'.
I suggest you start getting your arms around that idea.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
Wow, you are even sicker than I thought. I feel for you.
To answer your question, President Bush will be put on 'trial' in early Novemeber of 2004. The trial will be conducted by the American voters and he will be found 'not guilty'.
I suggest you start getting your arms around that idea.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
It is obviously laughable to even consider the notion of putting Bush on trial for war crimes. If lying through your teeth to your citizens can be considered a war crime, then we'd be hard-pressed to find a politician fit for office.
As for Patriot's claim that women will now be able to work and such ... this will remain to be seen. Throwing a tyrannical dictator in prison is one thing, enforcing Western ideologies on a culture with roots far deeper than our own is entirely another.
As for Patriot's claim that women will now be able to work and such ... this will remain to be seen. Throwing a tyrannical dictator in prison is one thing, enforcing Western ideologies on a culture with roots far deeper than our own is entirely another.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SanJose:
Lander,
As to not being an administrator of the site...I can prove it if you want, but I think neither of us wants to get into that kind of pissing match. Just give me your e-mail address and send you an e-mail explaining how I could prove it, that way you can go back and close the loopholes that I found through the search functions on this site.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think I know my position with the RX, or any other business pal. It is strictly free-lance development. In fact, I do not even have mod rights, access to the forum or mail servers.
By all means - shoot me an email at whywhy103@hotmail.com - and title it 'San Jose, RX', because this is my rouge account which has been overrun with spam.
As for the "loopholes", there's nothing I can do about since I don't have access to those machines.
Lander,
As to not being an administrator of the site...I can prove it if you want, but I think neither of us wants to get into that kind of pissing match. Just give me your e-mail address and send you an e-mail explaining how I could prove it, that way you can go back and close the loopholes that I found through the search functions on this site.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think I know my position with the RX, or any other business pal. It is strictly free-lance development. In fact, I do not even have mod rights, access to the forum or mail servers.
By all means - shoot me an email at whywhy103@hotmail.com - and title it 'San Jose, RX', because this is my rouge account which has been overrun with spam.
As for the "loopholes", there's nothing I can do about since I don't have access to those machines.
