Powells speech so far...

[ccvi]

Originally posted by Hortlund
The UN is not a democracy (hint: how many voters have veto powers in a democracy)

democracy comes from greek "demos" - people. In this simple definition there's nothing that disallowes a veto. If you take it literally, even the USA aren't a democracy, beeing lead by a president that didn't get even the votes of half the people. In a real democracy there aren't any leaders - people lead themselves.

Originally posted by Monk
Half of the US Army in the 1800's were German;)

And the result of the vote for the official language was almost German, too.

[Suave]

Originally posted by Boroda
Suave, so you think that DPRK was sending hundreeds of  strategic bombers to blow up Hoover Dam?

[/b]

No I think they were invading a peacefull country for the purposes of enslavement . Communists regimes have a nasty habit of trying to annex their neighbors .

Maybe you still think that bombings of Hanoi, Haifon, Tripoli, Belgrade and countless other places were the act of self-defence of the little poor helpless North American United States? [/B]

Yes of course, democracies have only ever gone to war to liberate themselves and their freedom loving neighbors .

I only reply because I find your brainwashed point of view fascinating. You are an example of just how utterly the truth can be corrupted .

[Boroda]

Originally posted by ygsmilo
"A society based on disinformation is doomed to repeat its failures unless it looks to itself for the truth."

Vey well said.

We destroyed such a society. Your turn now.

BTW, do you expect any state or government to be based on truth? The only way to get rid of it is to open your eyes and try to see the whole picture.

Originally posted by ygsmilo

Before you get all upset with that comment remember we have the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News and the Enquirer not only to report the news here but to also make it up.

If I understand you correctly - you just said what I wanted to. They don't report news (basic facts and information, the closest to the concept of "truth"), but MAKE them, feeding you the filtered and processed information.

[ygsmilo]

Originally posted by Boroda
Vey well said.

If I understand you correctly - you just said what I wanted to. They don't report news (basic facts and information, the closest to the concept of "truth"), but MAKE them, feeding you the filtered and processed information.

Thats what I said but the difference is that our Government does not tell the media what to say, if anything the media looks to exploit anything that is NOT the truth or not precieved as the truth.  With the media society we live in, ratings are the only thing that they care about thus the bigger the scandel, the better the story the more you can charge to show a female hygine product advertisment in prime time.

[GtoRA2]

our media may have its own agenda, but it has little to do with what the government wants.

In fact any time they can come of with a scandal on the government they race to see who can publish it first...


I think if you where born here you would be a area 51, UFO, government out to get us, type of guy! lol

Hell look at the what the media did in the 60s here, out and out lied to make it look like we where losing the war!

[Boroda]

Originally posted by SirLoin
Boroda,I was responding to Wabbit's assertation that Germany doesn't deserve a say in UN cause they were led by an evil regime some time ago.I used Stalin's USSR as an example of why this is not a good idea.No slight was intended on the people of either nation.

Sorry. I am just tired about the fact that average Westerner thinks that Stalin more people then the whole population of the USSR. My country should now be an uninhabited wilderness.

And frankly speaking I am going slightly furious in this "discussion".

Originally posted by SirLoin

BTW,you would look a lot "smatrer" if you checked your spelling.

It must be a compliment. Thanks.

It's dificult for me to read through all this endless posts, my "Lingvo" dictionary crashed and I am drinking beer. I'll be very happy if you'll point me at spelling mistakes in private messages.

[X2Lee]

Originally posted by GScholz
Well you certainly had, and still have, the right to withdraw from the UN. Why didn't you?

They wouldnt let me be Boss...
   

[Lance]

From an article in today's paper:

Powell withheld some critical details Wednesday, such as the discovery by the intelligence agencies that a member of the royal family in Qatar, a key ally providing air bases and a command headquarters for the U.S. military, operated a safe house for Zarqawi.

The Qatari royal family member was Abdul Karim Al-Thani, the coalition official said. The official added that Al-Thani provided Qatari passports and more than $1 million to finance the network.

Support from prominent Qataris to al Qaeda is a sensitive issue. With Qatar providing the U.S. military with its most significant air operations center for military action against Iraq, the Pentagon has cautioned against a strong diplomatic response from Washington, U.S. and coalition officials say.

We have much more damming evidence of ties to terrorism for Qatar than Iraq, yet we look the other way in Qatar's case because they will aid us in toppling Hussein?  How does this make sense?

If there was anywhere near this much evidence linking the Iraqi goverment to terrorism, I'd pick up the flag and get behind the President.  As it is, I am not convinced that Hussein is such a threat to us that we are justified in sending people to die in order to take him down.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Suave


No I think they were invading a peacefull country for the purposes of enslavement . Communists regimes have a nasty habit of trying to annex their neighbors .

Your country has a nasty habbit of bombing civilians "to stone age" anytime it seems safe enough.

About "annexing". ever heard how the state of Panama appeared? You think that US-controlled elections in SK that lead to separation of country in two parts was really "democratic"?

Originally posted by Suave


Yes of course, democracies have only ever gone to war to liberate themselves and their freedom loving neighbors .

I only reply because I find your brainwashed point of view fascinating. You are an example of just how utterly the truth can be corrupted .

Yeah. Freedom loving neighbours in Yugoslavia. Great.

"Dobro dolzhno byt' s kulakami,
S hvostom, s ogromnymi rogami..." etc.

Truth is always corrupted. Try to develop your own POV.

[Suave]

Boroda has trust issues in regards to governments, in his case that is understandable . He thinks that the governments of the USA and USSR were very similar when it came to the media, information and propoganda . I hope one day he will join the rest of us and realize that they were in fact polar opposites .

[Suave]

Yep Boroda, the USA created Panama, good thing for the free world that we did to. BTW Panama ejoys a free democracy, just as they allways have. We're still defending their freedom to govern themselves, seems there are some marxist militants out there that are trying to change that .

Oh and about sk. That's it, america "controlled" the elections, you see the south koreans really wanted to be slave laborers for a communist regime. But damn USA just had to rig the elections

[Toad]

OK, you know the Soviet Union MISSED the security council because it was BOYCOTTING the UN. Good.

Do you know WHY they were boycotting?

The Russian delegation to the Security Council did not attend the meeting because they were boycotting the United Nations for recognising Chiang Kai-shek’s government in Taiwan as the official government for China.

Taiwan wasn't expelled from the UN as the representative government of China until 1971; long after the Korean War had ended.

AS for Katyn, there's massive, indisputable evidence that Stalin ordered the execution of the Poles. Evidence that was available and proven long before the Soviet Union under Gorbachev formally admitted to the crime.

the Soviet Union under Gorbachev formally admitted to the crime.

You should feel special... you're probably one of the last folks on earth that know of Katyn that continue to deny that the Soviet Union was responsible for the mass murder of tens of thousands of Polish POW's.  POW's captured, by the way, by a Soviet Union that violated the following agreements it had with Poland by attacking them in concert with the Nazis.

When the Soviet Union invaded Poland there were in effect the following treaties and agreements between the governments of Poland and the Soviet Union:

The Peace Treaty between Poland, Russia and the Ukraine signed in Riga, on March 18, 1921, by which the Eastern frontiers of Poland were defined.

The Protocol between Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Rumania and the USSR regarding renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, signed in Moscow on February 9, 1929.
 
The Non-Aggression Pact between Poland and the USSR signed in Moscow on July 25, 1932.
 
The Protocol signed in Moscow on May 5, 1934 between Poland and the USSR, extending until December 31, 1945, the Non-Aggression Pact of July 25, 1932.
 
The Convention for the Definition of Aggression signed in London on July 3, 1933.

Why would they ignore these treaties? Because they had a new one with their new pals, of course.

On August 23, 1939 Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact, called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty. Secret protocols of the treaty defined the territorial spheres of influence Germany and Russia would have after a successful invasion of Poland.

Oh... wait... that never happened right? No Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty?

Like I said... you could make millions on the comedy circuit.

You don't use "critical thinking" and you apparently NEVER "use a source from any side" except the Stalinist disinformation side.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GScholz
Hortlund, I really think you should look up the word "international". Hint: it doesn't mean "the whole world".

[/b]
So when you are talking about an international democracy...exactly what are you talking about?

This all started when I pointed out that the UN is not a democracy. You then presented some ludicrous idea that "The number of votes [in world politics] should be based on population"
Then you talked about a "world democracy" whatever that is then since we are not talking about the entire world apparently...could you please sum up your position here because from where Im sitting, you're just rambling incoherently.

Of course there are nations that choose not to recognize international law or courts, however there are many who do. If not, why does the ICC courts process more than 500 cases of international trade disputes every year? If a country signs a treaty with a number of other nations that treaty IS binding, and if said country later refuses to abide by the treaty the other nations can collectively punish said nation as they see fit in accordance to the treaty. This does not however mean they have to punish that nation. Yes the USA have selected not to participate in an international crime court, so the USA will not fall under its jurisdiction, however many countries are willing and THAT makes it international.

[/b]
If you look back and try to remember why we are arguing abut this in the first place, its because I pointed out that there is no such thing as international law, no such thing as international police, and the only reason democracy works in various nations is because the it is based on laws that are upheld by the police and the army.

Your reply to that was this quote:

"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. "

Now you are apparently saying that it is based on treaties (=not laws), and the subjects to those treaties can chose whether they want to comply with the various desicions or not. But if they break the treaties other nations can punish them if they want.  Now please tie that quote together with the one I just quoted. What is "exactly the same"? For the situation to be the same, there would not be any laws in Norway, instead every citizen would have to enter into a treaty with every other citizen. Then if one citizen breaks a treaty with someone, the other citizens may punish him if they want. How is that exactly the same?

The EU in its present form is an international governmental organization. Are you arguing that the EU can't legislate law? Are you arguing that the EU couldn't punish a member state if it didn't abide by its resolutions? The same can be said of the UN, also an international governmental organization, but one that's not as entwined in the member states national government organization as the EU is.

[/b]
Yes, I am arguing that the EU cannot legislate law. What the EU can do is order member states to legislate law in the various member nations. I am also arguing that the EU is not an international governmental organization, the EU is a number of member states that have entered into several treaties with eachother, nothing more, nothing less. The EU can punish a member nation if it doesnt follow the rules, as long as that member nation accepts the punishment. if the member state says "screw you", the EU can call for sanctions or whatever, but the EU cannot force any member nation to do anything.

Basically your analysis of the EU and the UN is filled with flaws, and you seem to lack a basic understanding of what those organizations are and are not capable of doing.  

Your persistent attempts to humiliate me is really not becoming you Hortlund, but I do recognize its purpose. I also understand why you chose to become a judge (if you really are one) rather than a prominent lawyer earning the big bucks, you couldn't argue a point if your life depended on it. I don't think I'm the one that's embarrassing himself in this thread.

I think you are doing a pretty good job of humiliating yourself actually. As for your analysis of my ability to argue a point...lets just say that I think that analysis is about as thought through and valid as your analysis on the relationship between domestic and international law...

[bowser]

Always amazes me the number of people who are so keen to go to war.  Of course, those very same people will be sitting on their fat tulips watching the war on CNN.  I wish there was a way of getting the more vocal ones on the front lines...I'd bet they would pipe down real quick.

I suspect the people who will be doing the actual fighting will put a bit more thought into it.  They may be prepared to fight because that is their job...but I doubt very much that they want war.

P.S.  Any of you "keeners" veterans of other wars?  Didn't think so.

bowser

[WpnX]

Originally posted by bowser
Always amazes me the number of people who are so keen to go to war.  Of course, those very same people will be sitting on their fat tulips watching the war on CNN.  I wish there was a way of getting the more vocal ones on the front lines...I'd bet they would pipe down real quick.

I suspect the people who will be doing the actual fighting will put a bit more thought into it.  They may be prepared to fight because that is their job...but I doubt very much that they want war.

P.S.  Any of you "keeners" veterans of other wars?  Didn't think so.

bowser

Bowser,
I have to say you are wrong. No disrespect bud, but where do you think the warmongers go? - They go to the military where they can fight. If you visit any combat unit (not support or reserve unit - no disrespect meant to them either) you will find a unit very eager to put their training to the real test. I have seen light combat, had friends die in combat and will deploy in a couple of days to probably see more combat. While I would not classify myself as a "warmonger" I do not regret having to go at all. I have men in my unit who have seen heavy fighting in Somalia with the Ranger Bn. and Delta Force and they are eager to go. I've known Vietnam veterans with multiple tours (that means they wanted to go back) Many people call this foolish and don't understand and to them I don't try to explain it.