Author Topic: Powells speech so far... (Read 6382 times)

Hortlund · « **Reply #90 on:** February 06, 2003, 03:49:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Then I guess Norway isn't a democracy after all. Our politicians can ask "cabinet questions" and thereby block or even depose the elected government. Our King can veto any governmental decision up to 3 times.

[/b]
Maybe now would be a good time to read up on the word "democracy" and see what that means? Just because your elected politicians have the right to call a vote of confidence on the current government, and vote to have it removed from office is not "un-democratic", on the contrary, it is a very normal part of any parliamentary democracy. Same thing with head of states and veto powers. The US president has a veto too, does that make the US un-democratic? What happens after the 3rd veto from the King btw?

Quote

Hmm, do you support a "democracy" where the rich have more voting power than the poor?

No, what gave you that idea?

I just said the UN should be abandoned. because the idea of a democracy "one country, one vote" is rediculous when it comes to world politics.

Hortlund · « **Reply #91 on:** February 06, 2003, 04:15:00 AM »

So do you think there is a difference between a system where a veto can be overturned by a vote, and a system where a veto is absolute?

So you agree that the UN should be abolished? Great.

The number of votes should depend on number of citizens?

Yeah brilliant idea, lets give all the power in the world to China, India and various other suspect 3rd world nations.

Hortlund · « **Reply #92 on:** February 06, 2003, 05:09:22 AM »

Enter emoticons

Emoticons: (chorus)
-We are the tools of the unskilled writers. When someone fails to express himself through the written language he resorts to us. You should not hate us, because we only exist because of your own shortcomings.

Enter Hortlund and two soldiers

Hortlund:
-Private, take those disgusting "emoticons" out back and shoot them.

Emoticons:
-Oh noooo

Soldier:
-Yes Sir!

Exit soldiers and emoticons

*sound of gunfire*

Hortlund: (turns and faces the audience)

-I know that some of you are scared. That some of you doubt your own ability to express yourselves through the written language. But we all feel like that from time to time.

I have myself full confidence that if all do their duty,if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our bulletin board, to ride out the storm of emoticons, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years

if necessary alone.

At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of me and my merry men
That is the will of this bulletin board and indeed the entire internet.

The HTC Empire stand together as one linked in our cause and in our need, we will defend our bulletin board, each other like good comrades to the utmost of our strength.

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the emoticons and all the odious apparatus of their rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end.
We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air,
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be,
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds,
We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets,
We shall fight in the hills;
We shall never surrender.

Hortlund · « **Reply #93 on:** February 06, 2003, 05:16:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
LOL! Hortlund, nice try. When you're in minority democracy is a squeak right ...

I was going to say something along the lines of "moron" or "idiot".

So I'll do just that

Look moron, the only reason a democracy works is because it is based on laws that are upheld by the police and the army.

There are no such thing in the relationship between nations.

So tell me you idiot why any nation would want to give up parts of their independence just because another nation has more citizens?

X2Lee · « **Reply #94 on:** February 06, 2003, 06:09:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
And UK troops. Remember we have a third of our regular army in, or on their way to the Gulf right now.

But like you say, if the UN says go, I say go.

Well we will let the UN call go, just so long they get off thier
arse and say go.

The UN is not credible imo.
Good thing they are saying go, we are not impotent on this matter like some french speaking folks on the tube.

X2Lee · « **Reply #95 on:** February 06, 2003, 06:13:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
If China, France or Russia will say "no" - then it will mean "no" to the whole attempt to justify another unprovoked agression.

Permanent Security Council members have a right to veto any decision.

Yup the have the right.
We will be glad to do it without them.

Give it till the weekend then we will strike, be ready.

Hortlund · « **Reply #96 on:** February 06, 2003, 06:19:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Changing the Subject [SNIP]

I congratulate you on your ability to cut and paste.

X2Lee · « **Reply #97 on:** February 06, 2003, 06:20:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
If the USA is unwilling to abide by the majority vote in the UN (which is the basis for democracy btw.) then yes, you should withdraw from the organization.
.

LOL! Siaf_csf

Damned, in a perfect world!
We should have withdrawn 10 years ago.

Hortlund · « **Reply #98 on:** February 06, 2003, 06:21:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
- Look moron, the UN is right now trying to decide whether or not to attack Iraq for violating UN resolutions. Idiot.

So? Does that have anything to do with what I said? Dont think so huh...

The UN is not capable of enforcing anything on anyone. At most the UN can say "ok, all you member nations, you may declare war on country X now if you want...please" or "it's ok if you start sanctions against country X"...but thats it.

Hortlund · « **Reply #99 on:** February 06, 2003, 07:24:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
It's exactly the same. The government (in Norway at least) can't ORDER the police to arrest someone. They can however make law, and thereby give the police the right to arrest someone for violating that law. You're supposedly a judge, how many mute laws does Sweden have that the police never acts upon?

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Can you just drop this silly argument and leave it at that? You are only coming across like a complete moron/total idiot (take your pick).

A couple of philosophical questions for you to ponder over:
-How many mute laws are laws per se?
-Does the police have the right to arrest someone or the obligation to do so?
(The police doesnt have the right to arrest someone for violating the law. The police are obligated to arrest someone for violating the law in 95% of the cases, and they have a choice in the remaining 5%. If you want find a law book and try to the different words "shall" and "may". The go find a dictionary and look up the difference between "shall" and "may".)

Ripsnort · « **Reply #100 on:** February 06, 2003, 07:28:19 AM »

Hortlund · « **Reply #101 on:** February 06, 2003, 07:53:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
You persist with the personal attacks, a sure sign of a sore looser.

...rather than spewing your idealistic "how things work in a perfect society" drenched in infantile insult spittle,

hehehehe

"oops"

Hortlund · « **Reply #102 on:** February 06, 2003, 08:00:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
You're arguing that world democracy is a bad idea. Let me take a guess ... you voted against Sweden joining the EU ... didn't you.

[/b]
Yeah, I am arguing that a world democracy is a horrible idea. Its borderline insane actually. Why? Because I dont want the Chinese and Indian population decide over my life.

I voted yes to Sweden joining the EU. Imagine that huh...

Quote

But are they doing it?

the police does NOT arrest people for violating certain laws. Be it because of lack of resources or different priorities. It's the same with the UN. In a PERFECT WORLD member states would be required to act on the UN resolutions. Unfortunately most nations who otherwise would act, doesn't find it within their BUDGETED capabilities, or have other PRIORITIES.

Exactly what are you arguing about here? Somewhere along the line I stopped paying attention to your ramblings, and now I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you still maintaining that there are no difference between international relations and the relationship between the citizens and government of any given nation?

Frankly I have no interest whatsoever to debate Norwegian police crime fighting priorities with you. Sorry.

The Point I'm trying to make is twofold:
1) In the relationship between the various nations of the world, there are no binding laws, only treaties. If any nation violates treaty, there are no "police" to take them to "court".

2) The UN does not have any powers whatsoever, and they are completely dependent on the actions of the various member nations.

Boroda · « **Reply #103 on:** February 06, 2003, 10:19:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
In other words, Stalin was in favor of a North Korean offensive so long as it would come at little cost to the USSR or its interests in the region.

Well, this is how it probably was.

Tell me WHERE did I say I believe that SK attacked first!?

The situation was very complicated (as it usually happens), and both sides (I'd better say four sides) were trying to reach their goals, that can hardly be defined as "good" or "evil".

I'll look at your link, it must be intersting. What I read about that period are mostly materials from Russian Presidental Archives published in several books on post-war history, heavily Western-biased. Obvious bias in comments and attempts to substitute facts with propaganda slogans gave me the feeling I am reading a Soviet times cheap popular history abridged for high school... So I tried to read documents and try to understand what is between the lines. You know, when I see something like "This time the bloody Stalin's regime..." it makes me feel sick like "Capitalist countries led by American imperialists..." did in Soviet times.

If you take Western version of history, obviously as filled with propaganda as Soviet version, for granted - why can't I believe in Sovet version simply because I KNOW that USSR was not an "evil empire" as the enemy said?

Now back to the original topic.

What surprises me is why US acts so bold and primitive now. In 1950 they didn't let PRC to the SC meeting, obviously leaving USSR out too, in 1999 they made Russia to suggest a resolution to stop bombings instead of discussing their "peacekeeping" terror bombings (hehe I use Goebbels's term here) before they started.

Looks like now they are going to show everyone that they don't give a flying f@#k about UN decisions. A next logical step to the brave new world when noone will feel secure.

Hortlund · « **Reply #104 on:** February 06, 2003, 11:16:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz

On this point you are mistaken. There are international laws concerning trade, war and crime. Several international tribunals exist and an international trade court formed by the ICC. As for the "police", the USA is now trying to get a "deputy badge" from the UN, a badge I myself once wore, but you are right about the "police" being a voluntary effort.

[/b]
Why do people insist on talking on subjects they have no real knowledge of? Isnt it embarrassing to make a fool of yourself all the time? I mean there is a reason why I dont post in the threads about cars. I DONT KNOW toejam ABOUT CARS. Why oh why cant people accept their limitations and leave it at that?

I went over this with Dowding (albeit on a slightly different subject) and now another international law expert pops his head up.

I truly truly dont want to have to repeat all the basic fundamentals of international law yet once again. I dont.

If I put it this way: You are horribly wrong in your statement. Will you accept that and drop this subject? No huh?

Before I have to do yet another small essay on international law, ask yourself this question:
Have you heard about an permanent international crime court? If yes, have you also heard that the US have chosen not to participate in that one? If yes, how is that possible if there is an international law that is binding?

Another question. Have you heard about the Vienna convention on the law of Treaties? How can something be a law if it is up to any nation to chose to follow it or not?

The short answer to your questions about various courts is this: Those courts exist only because certain nations have decided to set up those courts, and follow their desicions, and the desicions of those "courts" are only binding if the nations involved accept said desicions. If you want, look up the international court of justice, case 1986 ICJ p 14 NICARAGUA vs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. That one should tell you exactly how international law works. Short recap:
Nicaragua -
US is mining our harbors, funding guerillas inside our borders and have an illegal embargo against us. All these things are in direct violation of international law.

US-
We dont recognize this court, now sod off.

Court-
err ummm well...