RE: More bad news from Iraq

RE: More bad news from Iraq (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 11:03:29 AM)
quote: This is altogether another discussion. I hope you understand what I mean when I say that. Breaking a speeding law for example is no moral wrong, IMO, but it's still breaking the law. So the next argument is, is breaking the law ever acceptable?? That is what we are discussing. Sure, as long as you don't whine about being caught, and doing the time.

pinkme2 -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 11:11:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: This is altogether another discussion. I hope you understand what I mean when I say that. Breaking a speeding law for example is no moral wrong, IMO, but it's still breaking the law. So the next argument is, is breaking the law ever acceptable?? That is what we are discussing. Sure, as long as you don't whine about being caught, and doing the time. Well, oftentimes if you can prove to a jury that you broke the law for reasons that they agree with, you get off. So whatever.

farglebargle -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 11:15:20 AM)
Sure, so let's put the CIA Agents on trial, and see what the Jury says, shouldn't we? Likewise, if you think Bush was justified in committing Criminal Fraud in the run up to Iraq, let's give it to a Special Prosecutor to present to a Grand Jury.

pinkme2 -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 11:33:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Sure, so let's put the CIA Agents on trial, and see what the Jury says, shouldn't we? Umm... put them on trial for what exactly? quote: Likewise, if you think Bush was justified in committing Criminal Fraud in the run up to Iraq, let's give it to a Special Prosecutor to present to a Grand Jury. Back to this again? He made a judgement in the course of his job, and for that he has qualified immunity. You all can try to impeach him, but he cannot be tried. And there was no fraud.

philosophy -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 12:06:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pinkme2 Breaking a speeding law for example is no moral wrong, IMO, but it's still breaking the law. So the next argument is, is breaking the law ever acceptable?? That is what we are discussing. ...i don't know the figures for the USA, but in the UK speeding kills more people (including innocent pedestrians) than there are incidents of murder. So, in the UK at least, i'd argue that speeding is morally wrong. i think Fargle does have a point, in the sense that individuals do decide whether or not to obey a law....and that, if caught, they have to justify it. They don't get to argue about the law, they have to argue a greater good being served.....and that isn't always possible. quote: It's not that the CIA is ever "above" the law. (And you can leave out the rhetoric, I think you're above that.) But in that instance, they felt that following that law was a greater wrong than to break it. Were they right or is that ever the case is another question. ......well, in the case of Nicaragua i wouldn't agree it's another question. i'd go as far as to say it's the only question. At what point are US agencies right to break US law? And to whom do they justify it? Because if they just get a free pass and never have to justify it....well, thats the very definition of 'above the law'. Some would say that combatting communism in other countries is, in and of itself, necessary. Some would disagree...and with the same moral right to do so. The latter parties may argue that intervening covertly in other countries is wrong, in and of itself. The former may argue......well, i'm not sure, though i'm sure they argue something. The thing is, where do these ideas get tested except in courts of law? Because they simply have to be tested....if law is to mean anything at all..........

luckydog1 -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 1:43:53 PM)
The issues of the funding and assistance to the Nicaraguan Contras, was fought out in law. Special prosecutor, the whole deal. Walsh, released his findings the day before the election in 88. Iran Contra affair, remeber? One person was convicted of lying under oath, Ollie North. The rest was not criminal. Congress overstepped its bounds and the amendmants (I forget the exact name) were overturned. It was a breach of the seperation of powers. A group of Nicaraguans with soviet and cuban backing (and Carters aquiessance) siezed power and after, they refused to share power or hold elections, and began implementing marxist lennism and bringing in Cubans, other Nicaraguans, including many who fought against Somoza, revolted and fought with US backing untill the Sandinistas agreed to hold legitimate elections under UN monitoring. The Sandinistas were voted out of power by the People, the civil war ended, and the lives of the people were greatly improved. In the last election they have made a bit of a comeback as a legitimate political party, and specfically renouncing Marxist lenninism and violence, have a slim majority in the National parliment. It was a huge step in the roll back of Soviet Communism. And I am not denying that it was a very dirty war at times, but it was by both sides. It is odd to me that some people seem to justify the bombing of hospitals in Iraq, by Jihadist funded operators (maybe Iraqi, in a hospital bombing probably not) fighting against the will of the majority of the Iraqi people. And compare it to people fighting against an unelected gov demanding a UN monitored vote, even allowing the former dictators party to join the process. We do not have to theorize about how the Contras behaved in victory, it is history, they asked JImmy carter to come in and monitor thier elections, and disbanded as a force. Am I to take it that some posters are unhappy that a Political process took root in Nicargua after centuries of brutal rule and rebbellion by one group after another?

farglebargle -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 3:21:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pinkme2 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Sure, so let's put the CIA Agents on trial, and see what the Jury says, shouldn't we? Umm... put them on trial for what exactly? quote: Likewise, if you think Bush was justified in committing Criminal Fraud in the run up to Iraq, let's give it to a Special Prosecutor to present to a Grand Jury. Back to this again? He made a judgement in the course of his job, and for that he has qualified immunity. You all can try to impeach him, but he cannot be tried. And there was no fraud. Fraud. Felony Fraud. Federal Felony Fraud. Go see the enumerated list of OVERT ACTS in the other thread, and reply there.

NorthernGent -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 3:42:11 PM)
The ICJ ruled that the US government should pay Nicaragua $12 billion on the grounds of violating their sovereignty (in 1986).

luckydog1 -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 5:09:41 PM)
The ICJ can rule anything it likes, who the hell cares.

Owner59 -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 5:23:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 The ICJ can rule anything it likes, who the hell cares. Yeah,international law,who cares?Certainly not neo-cons. God gave us our power over others,after all.Who the hell is the world community,our friends or trading partners,to question our mis-behavior?

pinkme2 -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 7:05:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: pinkme2 Breaking a speeding law for example is no moral wrong, IMO, but it's still breaking the law. So the next argument is, is breaking the law ever acceptable?? That is what we are discussing. ...i don't know the figures for the USA, but in the UK speeding kills more people (including innocent pedestrians) than there are incidents of murder. Speeding doesn't kill, stopping suddenly does! [:D] quote: So, in the UK at least, i'd argue that speeding is morally wrong. i think Fargle does have a point, in the sense that individuals do decide whether or not to obey a law....and that, if caught, they have to justify it. They don't get to argue about the law, they have to argue a greater good being served.....and that isn't always possible. And some are exempt from certain laws. Even in states where it is illegal to own handguns, the police still do. Are they breaking the law? Of course not. Are they above it? .Great post on the Contras, btw, luckydog.

farglebargle -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 7:28:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pinkme2 quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: pinkme2 Breaking a speeding law for example is no moral wrong, IMO, but it's still breaking the law. So the next argument is, is breaking the law ever acceptable?? That is what we are discussing. ...i don't know the figures for the USA, but in the UK speeding kills more people (including innocent pedestrians) than there are incidents of murder. Speeding doesn't kill, stopping suddenly does! [:D] quote: So, in the UK at least, i'd argue that speeding is morally wrong. i think Fargle does have a point, in the sense that individuals do decide whether or not to obey a law....and that, if caught, they have to justify it. They don't get to argue about the law, they have to argue a greater good being served.....and that isn't always possible. And some are exempt from certain laws. Even in states where it is illegal to own handguns, the police still do. Are they breaking the law? Of course not. Are they above it? .Great post on the Contras, btw, luckydog. They're NOT exempt from The Law, as The Law PERMITS them to carry those firearms. Just like The Law PERMITS other people to own/carry handguns. Y'all need a PERMIT from The Judge.

pinkme2 -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 7:34:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: pinkme2 quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: pinkme2 Breaking a speeding law for example is no moral wrong, IMO, but it's still breaking the law. So the next argument is, is breaking the law ever acceptable?? That is what we are discussing. ...i don't know the figures for the USA, but in the UK speeding kills more people (including innocent pedestrians) than there are incidents of murder. Speeding doesn't kill, stopping suddenly does! [:D] quote: So, in the UK at least, i'd argue that speeding is morally wrong. i think Fargle does have a point, in the sense that individuals do decide whether or not to obey a law....and that, if caught, they have to justify it. They don't get to argue about the law, they have to argue a greater good being served.....and that isn't always possible. And some are exempt from certain laws. Even in states where it is illegal to own handguns, the police still do. Are they breaking the law? Of course not. Are they above it? .Great post on the Contras, btw, luckydog. They're NOT exempt from The Law, as The Law PERMITS them to carry those firearms. Just like The Law PERMITS other people to own/carry handguns. Y'all need a PERMIT from The Judge. You need to reread what I wrote. In certain parts of the country, it is ILLEGAL for people to own guns. Period. Yet, cops are exempt and treated differently. Is this bigotry? Is this being above the law that civilians have to abide by? The point is that actions of the CIA, which would get regular Joe or Jane in deep shit are perfectly a-ok in that agency. So we have to judge them by a different measuring stick. You can't argue one thing in one place, and then change it around somewhere else. It catches up with you.

farglebargle -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 7:37:02 PM)
I think I get your point. There are TWO different sets of Laws. There's the set of laws which all of us Niggers need to obey. And Massah don' need to obey any laws.

pinkme2 -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 10:50:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I think I get your point. There are TWO different sets of Laws. There's the set of laws which all of us Niggers need to obey. And Massah don' need to obey any laws. I accept your surrender.

luckydog1 -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/1/2007 10:53:13 PM)
Yeah Owner59, if the IJC or our friends and trading partners supports a brutal dictatorship over people fighting for an open political process, who cares? So I take it you were a supporter of the Sandinistas?

NorthernGent -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/2/2007 12:35:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 The ICJ can rule anything it likes, who the hell cares. That's an interesting stance to take, considering that you once presented a defence for the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it is UN agreed (which it isn't, by the way). Looks like international bodies matter to you when it suits your argument. Some consistency wouldn't go amiss, Luckydog. P.S. The Sandinistas were democratically elected for 7 years prior to 1986. From your home in Alaska, of course, you know that these people were making a big mistake by voting according to their wishes.

meatcleaver -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/2/2007 12:58:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pinkme2 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Do you remember after 9/11 many Americans asked the question 'why does everyone hate us?'. You are one that obviously never asked the question never mind try to answer it. The answer is simple. The US is an empire. The people who blame America for everything asked that question. You have shown nothing to support your claim yet. OK, you think America is a benign peace loving nation and everyone in the world is happy to have American troops in their backyard acting as if they were in Tennesse. quote: An old British politician said the legacy of the British empire was spreading soccer around the world and the trerm 'Fuck off!'. Well the Americans can't leave 'Fuck off!' as a legacy but they can leave Micky Mouse and Coca Cola. And good government, and women's rights, and health care, and the auto, airplane, central heating and air, oh... It's just like that skit.. where they complain of Rome.. LOL LOL (next you'll say since I compared us to Rome, that PROVES the US is an Empire, but that just shows your lack of understanding.) quote: Don't mistake being liked for your money as the same as being liked for who you are. Since I don't have a lot of money, I never suffer from that dellusion. Well it isn't you people dislike since no one knows you but you are dellusional if you think American corporations backed by the threat of US military and economic power are loved around the world. It is not invidual Americans people hate but the US state and its bullying. quote: Many take the money from you because they know they can't get rid of you and might as well get something out of the deal. This is nothing new, it happens in every empire. No matter, every empire had people like you who genuinely thought they weren't an empire but were spread around the globe because they were invited and liked. Actually, I look more towards who imitates us, who buys our products or benefits from our innovations. I also look at who benefits from our charity. I see those who come to our universities or who immigrate... Are you an American, Meatcleaver? No, I'm not American but I go to the US regularly to visit my brother who is married to an American and lives there. I enjoy my visits very much. quote: Oh And Britain didn't have to occupy land either to get what it wanted. You just need military power, money and the ability to divide and rule. They didn't occupy India? They didn't occupy the US or the West Indies? Or Australia? Rome didn't occupy Gaul or parts of England? I think you are grasping at straws here. We are not an Empire even if you do hate us so much. Actually they didn't occupy the US since the 13 colonies were British colonies. See how cockeyed your thinking is? Britain had less than half the troops in India than the US has in Iraq and Britain only has troops in a fraction of India, most of India (Indian leaders) cooperated with the British for the same reasons many countries cooperate with the US today, military and economic threats. It is logical to take the US dollar than smile nicely and curse you under their breath than make enemies with you.

meatcleaver -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/2/2007 1:03:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: pinkme2 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Do you remember after 9/11 many Americans asked the question 'why does everyone hate us?'. You are one that obviously never asked the question never mind try to answer it. The answer is simple. The US is an empire. The people who blame America for everything asked that question. You have shown nothing to support your claim yet. OK, you think America is a benign peace loving nation and everyone in the world is happy to have American troops in their backyard acting as if they were in Tennesse. quote: An old British politician said the legacy of the British empire was spreading soccer around the world and the trerm 'Fuck off!'. Well the Americans can't leave 'Fuck off!' as a legacy but they can leave Micky Mouse and Coca Cola. And good government, and women's rights, and health care, and the auto, airplane, central heating and air, oh... It's just like that skit.. where they complain of Rome.. LOL LOL (next you'll say since I compared us to Rome, that PROVES the US is an Empire, but that just shows your lack of understanding.) I think you might find all thses things in all developed countries and just about all have better healthcare than the US. The inventions you mention are a product of western culture not just American. In fact many American innovations were from immigrants and German war criminals. quote: Don't mistake being liked for your money as the same as being liked for who you are. Since I don't have a lot of money, I never suffer from that dellusion. Well it isn't you people dislike since no one knows you but you are dellusional if you think American corporations backed by the threat of US military and economic power are loved around the world. It is not invidual Americans people hate but the US state and its bullying. quote: Many take the money from you because they know they can't get rid of you and might as well get something out of the deal. This is nothing new, it happens in every empire. No matter, every empire had people like you who genuinely thought they weren't an empire but were spread around the globe because they were invited and liked. Actually, I look more towards who imitates us, who buys our products or benefits from our innovations. I also look at who benefits from our charity. I see those who come to our universities or who immigrate... Are you an American, Meatcleaver? No, I'm not American but I go to the US regularly to visit my brother who is married to an American and lives there. I enjoy my visits very much. quote: Oh And Britain didn't have to occupy land either to get what it wanted. You just need military power, money and the ability to divide and rule. They didn't occupy India? They didn't occupy the US or the West Indies? Or Australia? Rome didn't occupy Gaul or parts of England? I think you are grasping at straws here. We are not an Empire even if you do hate us so much. Actually they didn't occupy the US since the 13 colonies were British colonies. See how cockeyed your thinking is? Britain had less than half the troops in India than the US has in Iraq and Britain only has troops in a fraction of India, most of India (Indian leaders) cooperated with the British for the same reasons many countries cooperate with the US today, military and economic threats. It is logical to take the US dollar, smile nicely and curse you under their breath than make enemies with you.

luckydog1 -> RE: More bad news from Iraq (11/2/2007 11:02:40 AM)
Meat, I am not sure what having our corporations being loved around the world has to do with anything. Loved? What nations corporations are loved? That is just such a sillly meaningless thing to say. Anyone who would love a company or expect someone to is kind of mentally unbalanced. I think some people love some of the products, Levis Jeans, Les Pual Guitar, Macdonalds food, or Chrsitina Aguileras music(or does she work for a british corparation? or a japanese one? German?) for instance. Other people hate them, which also seems to indicate a need for psychiatric help. As much as you hate to admit it Meat, the present condition of the western nations, is because of the USA and what we did in WW2. And yes absolutly we are most certainly wanted in every (maybe Cuba is the exception) nation we have a millitary base, especially when our troops act like they are in Tennessee. Occasinally we get asked to leave, and we do, for example the Philipines, Subic Bay. Even your precious Netherlands lets us store Nuclear bombs at Vokel. And the world population has expolded in Modern times. To compare raw numbers of troops from today to any point pre 20th century is nonsense, as it is with anything. And millitaries in the past basicaly lived off of the Locals, we have more troops involved in supply and logistics than we do patrolling and firing weopons. Also your troops in India were monsters, and locals knew that women and children would be slaughtered if they disobeyed, or they didn't grow enough cotton. We go to huge efforts to pull our punches and not cause civilian deaths, if we didn't we easily could have depopulated the place and taken the oil.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625