Author Topic: Germany Owes the World an Apology! (Read 3964 times)

Martlet · « **Reply #135 on:** April 08, 2003, 12:58:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Does the U.S. have sanction from the UN Security Council for the invasion of Iraq?

Look up the definition of sanctions

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
No it's not. You just don't know what the word means in this context.

If it was sovereign than the Iraqi government would have supreme authority over all terrority within it's international recognised boarders. It does not have supreme authority over territory that has been conquered by US and GB forces.

Look up the definition of sovereign

Sandman · « **Reply #136 on:** April 08, 2003, 01:02:40 AM »

I know what the definition of sanction is.

Martlet · « **Reply #137 on:** April 08, 2003, 01:04:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I know what the definition of sanction is.

Then you see the obsurdity of your question. Perhaps you should edit it.

Thrawn · « **Reply #138 on:** April 08, 2003, 01:10:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Look up the definition of sovereign

I have. It is evident that you have not and that is what I mean by that you don't debate in good faith. A sovereign state should have control both over foreign and internal policies and there should be no restrictions over land and borders, water and other resources, and their ability to determine their own economic and social development.

Sandman · « **Reply #139 on:** April 08, 2003, 01:11:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Then you see the obsurdity of your question. Perhaps you should edit it.

Cut and paste as you like... "formal decree" or "explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification."

Martlet · « **Reply #140 on:** April 08, 2003, 01:15:23 AM »

I asked for the definition, not your interpretation of it.

Main Entry: 2sovereign
Variant(s): also sovran
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English soverain, from Middle French, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin superanus, from Latin super over, above -- more at OVER
Date: 14th century
1 a : superlative in quality : EXCELLENT b : of the most exalted kind : SUPREME c : having generalized curative powers d : of an unqualified nature : UNMITIGATED e : having undisputed ascendancy : PARAMOUNT
2 a : possessed of supreme power b : unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT
3 : relating to, characteristic of, or befitting a sovereign2 a : possessed of supreme power b : unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT

Autonomy. Something Iraq has not, and will not lose.

Martlet · « **Reply #141 on:** April 08, 2003, 01:17:07 AM »

Thanks. I'll take B: for 1000 Alex.

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
"explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification."

1441 gives this.

Sandman · « **Reply #142 on:** April 08, 2003, 01:19:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Thanks. I'll take B: for 1000 Alex.

1441 gives this.

I disagree.

Martlet · « **Reply #143 on:** April 08, 2003, 01:21:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I disagree.

disagree all you'd like. You can disagree that I'm wearing a sweatshirt. Doesn't stop it from being true.

Kirin · « **Reply #144 on:** April 08, 2003, 01:27:34 AM »

Quote

They do state we sold them *components*.

is this like

Quote

I did not *inhale*.

?

Thrawn · « **Reply #145 on:** April 08, 2003, 01:34:55 AM »

Cripes.

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
2 a : possessed of supreme power b : unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT

Does the Iraqi government have supreme power of unlimited in extent within it's nationstate right now?

No.

Thanks for the definition, although you might want to have read it before posting it and having it prove my point.

Quote

3 : relating to, characteristic of, or befitting a sovereign2 a : possessed of supreme power b : unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT

Autonomy. Something Iraq has not, and will not lose.

What it doesn't have it but it will not lose it? Well I guess if it doesn't have it to lose in the first place.

Let's assume it was a typo and that you ment, "Something Iraq has, and will not lose."

If this is that case, then you don't know what autonomy means.

Autonomy

1. The condition or quality of being autonomous; independence.

2. a) Self-government or the right of self-government; self-determination.
B)Self-government with respect to local or internal affairs: granted autonomy to a national minority.
3. A self-governing state, community, or group.

Whelp, parts of Iraq are self govening but certainly not all of it, some is govenment by the US and GB militaries.

And hey whats the plan for Iraq after the war. Isn't the US planning on having that retired US general run it in a military governance, hmmm doesn't sound like it's going to be "self governing" now does it? Sounds like the US is going to govern it.

Thrawn · « **Reply #146 on:** April 08, 2003, 01:38:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
disagree all you'd like. You can disagree that I'm wearing a sweatshirt. Doesn't stop it from being true.

Jesus Martlet, you can say I'm wearing a sweatshirt. Doesn't make it true.

"1441 gives this."

"The sky is plaid."

Martlet · « **Reply #147 on:** April 08, 2003, 01:44:21 AM »

Let me spell this out for you. Real slow. If you need help, I'll even make another 3rd grade reading level coloring book for you.

Iraq is sovereign in that it has defined borders, resources, and population. That will not change. Iraq DID NOT have "self government". They were under a totalitarianship. Saddam had sovereignity in that sense, Iraq did not.

Independence, to use your word, is also something Iraq did not have. Saddam had that, too. Iraq did not.

The UN recognizes the sovereignity of a Nation. Iraq's sovereignity is being returned to them, after it was stolen by Saddam. If the coalition annexed Iraq, as Iraq did to Kuwait, then it would have violated international law.

The UN has not declared this war illegal.
The UN has not stated the US is in violation of anything.

Is that in simple enough speak for you? This civics lesson is free of charge, the next one may cost you.

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Jesus Martlet, you can say I'm wearing a sweatshirt. Doesn't make it true.

"1441 gives this."

"The sky is plaid."

I don't even pretend to understand what you mean by that.

Thrawn · « **Reply #148 on:** April 08, 2003, 02:07:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Iraq is sovereign in that it has defined borders, resources, and population.

Hey Martlet from your own definition. "possessed of supreme power b : unlimited in extent "

Right now. does the govenment of Iraq have supreme power of unlimited extent within it's defined borders, over its resources, and population?

Quote

That will not change. Iraq DID NOT have "self government". They were under a totalitarianship. Saddam had sovereignity in that sense, Iraq did not.

Independence, to use your word, is also something Iraq did not have. Saddam had that, too. Iraq did not.

Can you show me anywhere within your definition, the words totallitarianism, democracy or any form of government for that matter? A sovereign state has nothing to do with the form or type of govenment the national government takes. Its about the that state's government having absolute power over what goes with in the boarders of it.

Quote

the coalition annexed Iraq, as Iraq did to Kuwait, then it would have violated international law.

No. Both countries were and are in violation of international law because they both broke faith with the charter they signed. A charter that said they would only go to war for self defence, mutual self-defence or with security council approval. The intentions of what the countries wish to do after they have already entered a state of illegal war are irrelevant.

Quote

The UN has not declared this war illegal.
The UN has not stated the US is in violation of anything.

The UN through the security council couldn't pass a resolution declaring the war illegal if it wanted to. Both the US or GB would simply veto it.

Quote

civics lesson is free of charge, the next one may cost you.

I certainly got my moneys worth.

Quote

I don't even pretend to understand what you mean by that.

You decried Sandman for making a statement and not backing it up. "I disagree."

Right after you made a statement with out backing it up. "1441 gives this."

It's hypocritical.

Martlet · « **Reply #149 on:** April 08, 2003, 02:21:49 AM »

Quote

Right now. does the govenment of Iraq have supreme power of unlimited extent within it's defined borders, over its resources, and population?

No, Saddam took that away, but it will shortly.

Quote

Its about the that state's government having absolute power over what goes with in the boarders of it.

Exactly. And when Saddam made Iraq a Totalitarian state, that power went from Iraq to Saddam.

Quote

The intentions of what the countries wish to do after they have already entered a state of illegal war are irrelevant.

Agreed, however irrelevent to the contexed in which it was used. I cited it as an example, not as a point.

Quote

The UN through the security council couldn't pass a resolution declaring the war illegal if it wanted to. Both the US or GB would simply veto it.

Doesn't change the fact that it isn't.

Quote

Right after you made a statement with out backing it up. "1441 gives this."

S/RES/1441 (2002)

Items 13 + 14 in reference to Item 1