 | | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Its an example to show that you can't use a country's laws legally in another country. The UN had the resolution--the UN has to deal with enforcing it. The US, stating the UN resolution as reason to invade, but at hte same time acting against (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I put a question mark behind my question to show that it wasn't an assumption. You assumed incorrectly that I was making an assumption. I would have used a more recent example from Africa, but I couldn't remember the name of the country (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
|
(...) Indeed it was, but you wholy missed the point in your zealous rush to criticize me yet again. I wasn't objecting to your use of my own words, but to your callous treatment of my statements by way of making a big public show of ignoring them. (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Only nations can generate patriotic pride (Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?)
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I've been busy building for the last couple weeks, but I've finally got a chance to come back and read through this mess again. Much as others missed the intent of your sewer comment, I think you missed the intent of my patriotism (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) There's only one part of your answer that matters: "No". When talking about something being "just" or "unjust", we are not talking about the power to enforce that, and I'm not addressing that at all. So, no, Saddam doesn't have the right to (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) Various unorganized thoughts: --While web surfing does involve a lot of reading, this is generally in very small bites, distracted by a lot of colorful eye-candy. It's like the contrast between USA Today and the New York Times. Reading books (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Not sure--maybe they could go at night, when no one's watching. Your other post suggesting "information" seems a good compromise, unless the surrounding nation can somehow claim the airwaves as its own property and thereby charge for their (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Honestly, I don't know the answer to that one off hand. What do you suggest? Armored VTOL aircraft or spaceships? Or maybe just never leaving? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Can information penetrate this barrier? In that case pretty much any country with a sufficient(1) technology and manufacturing base should be OK (even if they're a net importer of food and raw materials now) 1 - I suspect defining "sufficient" (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I support cohesive sanctions against Iraq. That said, my wanting to not let people suffer anywhere in the world gets conflicted with what's best in the long run. 'Food for oil' will minimize the suffering of the people today, however it won't (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Hey, you know, I always (well, not really always) wondered why they don't do that with those "Native American" casinos you see popping up all over the place these days. Apparently they're able to fight that sort of thing off. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Well, maybe this is a better hypothetical: What if the dominant nation (accepting, though, that the minarchist idea kind of trumps this) simply buys all territory surrounding the smaller nation and then charges the smaller nation a billion (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Nope, I was genuinely intersted to see where the debate would go--I don't have a solid opinion on the matter, and this particular hypothetical scenario doesn't pertain to the current Iraqi situation. I did think about the American revolution, (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) In advance? Would you sign up for that? Or do you mean after the fact against people who were in already? I would tend to think (and I'm guessing here) that every new law (except basic common law, you can't dodge the prohibition against (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Dejure. "consent of the governed" and all that... It may defacto have a lot of guns though. (...) Only if you can escape, and your former co citizens (or properly employed police) don't come find you and remand you back into custody. I don't (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) That's fine with me--I'm interested in examining the philosophy itself, (...) Okay, I think that makes some sense. But couldn't the dominant nation simply impose upon the seceeding nation a fee of, say, a billion dollars per person to effect (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote in message news:I0Ju05.zt6@lugnet.com... (...) people (...) Ok, so an improperly formed sovereignty doesn't have any validity... (...) the (...) exclude (...) Hmm, if I'm accused of a crime, (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
These are LMF answers, not my own, which are rather muddier. (...) Yes, each and every one... (...) Any group of people, no matter how small, whether territorial or not. At the extreme, it must be unanimous consent or else provision must be made to (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
"Bruce Schlickbernd" <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote in message news:I0Hq3D.5IE@lugnet.com... (...) guys (...) must (...) that (...) in the (...) line. (...) these guys (...) Good point about people who don't want to be there guarding people's (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:I0Hp4F.24K7@lugnet.com... (...) happen: (...) this (...) or (...) lives (...) granted. Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with either solution, but I think we should widen the sources for aid. (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
These are LMF answers, mind you... not mine, which are rather muddier (...) Armed conflict happens, presumably. (...) The citizens of the invaded country. As always, just as if they were considering secession peacefully. (...) The Second Amendment (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
"Lenny Hoffman" <lahoffma@*NOSPAM*ma...r.fsu.edu> wrote in message news:I0Jo0v.1KL2@lugnet.com... (...) was a (...) legality (...) of (...) it. I, (...) the chest (...) directly (...) them (...) is (...) Hmm, are you never justified in taking (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
"David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message news:I0JpDD.1yqA@lugnet.com... (...) from (...) ways, we (...) a) (...) world (...) of your (...) This does tend to be the best way to deal with people who won't play nice. Of course at some (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote in message news:I0Jrr3.GAL@lugnet.com... (...) short (...) to (...) own and (...) foreign (...) always (...) answer (...) Hmm, how do you define sovereignty? Does it require consent of the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
"Lenny Hoffman" <lahoffma@*NOSPAM*ma...r.fsu.edu> wrote in message news:I0JsE3.KMD@lugnet.com... (...) point (...) in our (...) than (...) Hmm, in my experience, extreme examples are great for exploring assertions, and helping cut to the essense. I (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
These are MLF answers mind you, not my personal view which is a bit muddier (...) I suspect you're not going to do that but OK, I'll play along. (...) Check. (...) Check. (...) Not legitimately directly from other countries. Only from privateers who (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) ooh.. i know! Maybe I'm not man enough! (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) "no intervention" - the UN has repeatedly placed economic sanctions on countries for human rights abuses. "slaughter" is a loaded term. A nation has a right to defend itself from insurgents and rebels. A nation has a right to enforce its own (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I'm curious--under the Flash(tm) philosophy, what happens if one sovereign nation invades and subjugates a second nation, thereby imposing the sovereignty of the invader over the invaded? What kind of action can be taken in response, since the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Well, let's talk about this, then, and keep it entirely in the realm of hypothetical. Country A is oppressive. A majority of citizens of Country A decide to have a 'revolt' to shake off the tyrannical oppressive gov't. Can the citizens get aid (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I just finished replying to your message where you did indeed dodge the question, so I gotta say that you ignorant claim is pretty darn ignorant. :-) (...) Of course not. I was merely trying to get you to confront the logical extension of your (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) In my experience, extreme examples do more to mud up the argument rather than cutting to the essence. The key issue is regarding WW2 and the Holocaust is that nation sovereignty wasn't an issue for either case (the war or the genocide). (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) The Macho Libertarian Flash(tm) answer is that there is NO justification, short of actually being invaded by another sovereignty and needing to repel the attack, that justifies attack on another sovereign country. Nor is there any (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote in message news:I0JqsJ.8C7@lugnet.com... (...) to me, (...) act of (...) do, in (...) open on the (...) Not if the reader is driving a Humvee... Reading really is a set of skills: 1. (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) A dodge, but I'll go with the flow: then you believe that international law supports that any nation recognized by the U.N. is free to slaughter its inhabitants at will and no intervention is just? (...) I'll lay it out to you the same way I (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) But that was just an extreme example of what I said. It was a starting point for distinguishing what you really think about the role of sovereignty in our war-decisions. Do you think that a nation can act to cause harm to its own population (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Dave. You are now my hero. I will make an effort to read OTD regularly from now on so I can catch every snipet of ignorance that falls from your golden mouth. -Lenny (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) That doesn't count as reading either! ... but it does count as evolution in action. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) It always bums me out when I discover that someone hasn't been reading any of my posts. Dave! 8^) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) The way I heard it was, around 1450 or so, a learned scientist did a study on the phenomenon, which supported the claim, but since he was not really happy with the results, his method of "publishing" was to ask his son to memorise the whole (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Well, when you ask it, it seems well thought out and even-headed. I do believe, what Bruce actually asked me was if I supported Hitler killing the Jews - which is not well thought out, not even headed, and offensive. i tend to respond to guff (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) It doesn't count as reading while driving unless the book is propped open on the steering wheel. Dave! (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) I saw an 'Outer Limits' ep about this very thing People worldwide could 'plug into' the 'net and get any info they need instantly. The 'net was run by one giant 'puter. However, there were a very small number of people, whether due to birth (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) No. I'm saying why oppose Saddam whilst supporting other problem countries. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) I agree. While training for my esteemed current vocation, I had to attend a session re: business communication. The central tenet was that people simply don't correspond as much as they used to, and the lecturer cited some (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
Something else I should have asked in my other note... What counts as reading? If I get a CD with someone reading the Illiad to me, does that count? Obviously, I'm not engaged in the specific physical act of parsing written language, but I am (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) I expect that reading will always (well, for a good long while yet) be a needed skill, because at some level it will be necessary simply to read the label, directions, caption, or whatever on something that doesn't support the direct-meat (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I was just starting a tangent to the current discussion--hence, 'here's a debatable subject'... It's a "Hmmm.." (strokes chin thoughtfully). That said, if you want an answer to your specific question--'can sovereign nations slaughter the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) Err, do you forsee the computers of that day as more akin to the library, or the television? It could take the term couch potato to a whole new level. (...) Wild, but interesting speculation. It has all the makings of a really good SF book. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
Jeez, did everyone take angry pills today? I think Bruce's point is pretty clear. You asserted that our invasion of Iraq was bad (illegal, unjust, whatever) because it violated the sovereignty of Iraq. Bruce is asking you (and now DaveK) if there (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) I'm not particularly troubled. I hope to see the day when computers have fairly direct interfaces with meat. If/when that comes around, people won't read at all, really. Will that be a tragedy? I think this is just a sign of progress. On the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Not comparable. And I'm not talking about my support - but rather the legality of international law. (...) You're changing my scenario. But even then, you'd still be a murderer for killing him. The correct thing to do would be to call the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure this is maybe the most ignorant thing I've read in a month. I'm starting to think you're not able to have a friendly discussion about anything. No, I don't condone genocide. Did you really think I did? Regarding WW2 - the key (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) See, with that kind of non-sequitor answer you are just encouraging Lenny to dodge the question the same way. Nor was the question aimed at countries, it was aimed at him as a person. Let me direct it specifically at you: could any nation (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(URL) thing I came away with, and it doesn't offset the overall concern I feel, is that it may not be READING that is in steep decline, it may be reading BOOKS. One of the chief competitive sources listed was the internet. High bandwidth streaming (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Truth and consequences?
|
|
(...) I am waiting as well. It seems like everything else during the Dubya time in office--hide anything and everything that might have the whiff of wrongness about it. If this happened on Bubba's watch, he and his administration would have been (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) Actually, it's not Haliburton again. It's Haliburton, still. This is hardly an over-and-done-with matter, no matter how much Conservatives, Neo-Cons, and the administration might wish it were. (URL) This> is worth reading because it provides (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Truth and consequences?
|
|
It's been about nine months, and I've begun to wonder: Why isn't Bob Novak in jail? I don't criticize him for protecting his informant, but whether or not Novak reveals his source, Novak himself still violated national security by revealing Valerie (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sarcasm
|
|
(...) I think this might not be formatted quite right, I think you need to put the http:// part on the front or else LUGNET thinks it is a relative link (shifted to plaintext so you could see it, but go upthread and try clicking on it to see what (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sarcasm
|
|
(...) From the internet. <www.cogsci.princeto...-bin/webwn Sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn>. Hee, hee. Don't know how I could have missed the insults and scorn. But you're right, I'm wrong. I see you are a funny guy after (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: <snip> (...) There's a debatable issue for you--if Pearl Harbor never happened, would the Americans have 'officially' entered WW2 at all? I mean, the Allies didn't know Hitler was murdering the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you.
|
|
(...) No. That's what this place is for. Right? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Some soldiers will always refuse to fight. I read the other day about paratroopers who refused to jump on D-Day. During the Vietnam War, many servicemen refused to fight; indeed, a few ships did not leave port. If soldiers have enlisted, I (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you.
|
|
(...) Don, do you often go into bars looking for fights? Scott A (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) What is the alternative when it is often the people in these countries which can benefit most from what the UN can provide (e.g. direct aid and peace keeping)? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) This is an interesting point. But then, I'm begining to really question democracy as the most effective way of ruling a people. Sometimes coups occur because the masses make the wrong decision (ie, Musharraf taking over Pakistan to keep it (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I gave my reasons. (...) So, Germany could slaughter jews at whim in the 20th century because it was a sovereign nation and you fully support that? (...) Perhaps you mean "right" and not "power", because you are demonstrably wrong on that (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Sarcasm
|
|
(...) Last I heard it's a humourous device. It was present in my last post, and (URL) this post>. Maybe you missed it? I guess maybe different people have different senses of humour. <SARCASM> I'd certainly never accuse you of not having a sense of (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you.
|
|
(...) Liar. You're not sorry. You did it on purpose because you're one dimensional and have no sense of humor. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you.
|
|
(...) Holy crap, I'm sorry I didn't conform *EXACTLY* to some strict unwritten forum rule of who should answer to who in what threads. Whatever. ROSCO (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you.
|
|
(...) Well, perhaps you should've replied directly to Scott, because you completely ignored what I had to say. Do you often speak just to hear the sound of your own voice? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Typo! This should read "wasn't legitimate" rather than was. That is, the UN hardly ever says anything bad about a government's legitimacy, compared to the number of coups. So the UN seems to see coups as (at least defacto) an OK way to change (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
Snipped much away. (...) However, is there a distinction between recognising the reality of a strongman being in power through force, and recognising the legitimacy of his rule? I'm just asking. But I suspect that many countries, operating in the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you.
|
|
(...) Yes, I did. But I'm not sure what my browsing habits have to do with the topic at hand? ROSCO (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Umm.. I think his concept is that if we overthrew Saddam b/c he was abusive to his population, we should overthrow the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan as well. If nothing else, it shows a lack of consistency in the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you.
|
|
(...) You didn't even look at (URL) the proof>, did you? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I'm not suggesting, nor making any statement, that Saddam's actions are just. I'm questioning whether the USA's actions were just. Or rather, specifically, wondering why you think they were "not unjust." (...) I'm speaking hypthetically as (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I fear we aren't playing fair
|
|
(...) And besides, the US isn't into fair trials for terrorism suspects, why would they worry about a fair trial for SH? And if the US isn't worried, why should Iraq??? ROSCO (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I fear we aren't playing fair
|
|
(...) Fair? What for? He cheats at everything, and (URL) here's the proof>. Enjoy, (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Interesting comments by you and Frank. I have a reaction on a couple of different levels. One, as a soldier, I sure as heck wouldn't want those guys forced into guarding my back. Two, at some point, people as individuals must question their (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) If you'll modify that to "some" rather than "much", I'll agree (mostly support to him being a thorn in the side of Ayatollah wackos in Iran, but then, there's a certain sense of deja vu in the U.S. screwing around with things there, too). (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Yeah. You know, this whole topic would be easier if one of two things would happen: either privatize the armed services -- eliminating any need to deal with this kind of situation any differently than any other contractual obligation, or (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) yet (...) assert that (...) desertion. (...) of (...) up. (...) Hmm, interesting question. I tend to feel that you should have known what was possible before signing up. Anyone who is active now has had an opportunity to bail out, or should (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Much of which he did with US support. (...) Seriously, was he any worse in 2003 than some of the human rights abusers Bush supports today? I’m talking about countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Why? I find myself with complicated reactions to the situation that I haven't yet worked through. Were they dodging slavery (the draft), then I would assert that they had the moral high ground and I would be supportive of their desertion. But (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Win-win-win?
|
|
(...) Well that has failed. The WMD are apparently AWOL, the whole country looks like a giant terrorist recruiting centre and it is clear that the "threat" to us all is (URL) increasing>! (...) Yep. We killed >10,000, put new torturers in the (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) Yeah, I'm with John! What does it matter if Americans die needlessly and have their resources wasted as long as it is happening Out of Sight! ;-) Hunky-dory. No relation to Shiri Dori. Or were you being ebonical? -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) That he is a genocidal tyrant that has additionally invaded two of his neighbors soley to steal their resources springs to mind. Or are you saying that Saddam's actions are "just"? (...) Unjust things happen during any war - however, from a (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Would you mind providing why you think this? I think we'd all agree that war, all things being equal, tends to be unjust. Furthermore, Saddam was the recognized (by us) legitimate ruler of a sovereign nation. He did thumb his nose at UN (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) It's stupid, it's not what we claim it's about, it's presentation of the facts are wrong, it's not worth our effort, there are better things for us to pursue, and I can go on and on. But overthrowing Saddam in itself is not "unjust". (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) Oh that's simple then--there's the base line right there! We can kick at the ant hill all we want and so long as the ants don't come and attack us directly, then things are honkey dory! We can get the hornets all nice and angry by throwing (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
Your sons and daughters who don't want to go to Iraq to die in an unjust war... (URL) legalities aside, do soldiers have a right to 'get out' if they feel that a war their particular country is fighting is unjust? Was there another way out for these (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) I'm talking about *today* (...) I mean Bush has engineered a situation whereby OBL’s foot soldiers are apparently crawling all over Iraq... a country apparently full of WMD! (...) Nice try. I did not say that. (What is your point?) (...) I (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) Along with everybody else. (...) What exactly do you mean? Yes, there are terrorists there to attack Americans. But can you not see that we are not the only targets? What if, tomorrow, we were to evacuate completely from Iraq? Do you think (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) If you do think he had WMD, are you not concerned that Bush has engineered a situation whereby OBL’s foot soldiers are apparently crawling all over the country? Scott A (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) I stand corrected. I noticed my gaff after I posted:-( Though it isn't your stance, it is a common misconception that is held. I apologize for attributing it to you:-) (...) Our main objective was eliminating a dangerous threat in the person (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) John, don't be silly. (URL) Bush has no interest in democracy>. (...) Saddam held "elections" after he installed himself too. ;) (...) I note you do not counter my argument. (...) I note you do not counter my argument. (...) I note you do not (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) No. We replaced an errant CIA stooge with a compliant one. ;) (...) Read (URL): Many Iraqis believe the decision to launch military action against the regime of Saddam Hussein was unwarranted, according to a poll by Oxford Research (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) Actually, I'd say your misquote of me is the gross distortion (see the first line in the quote sequence for the correct claim). :-) (...) I still don't see what your point is here beyond controlling that flow (your original point was how it (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Knights' Kingdom™ is ugly.
|
|
(...) Sorry about that; I didn't mean to rip on Playmobil. I do think they're a nice toy, just not as fun as LEGO. That's why I added the "on acid" part. (20 years ago, 3-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
