 | | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Britain and France had a treaty with Poland which guaranteed its territorial integrity. A {much} overlooked point is that the USSR invaded Poland a week or two after Nazi Germany did. We did not declare war on them as Churchill hoped the USSR (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
|
(...) Sorry, I can't help notice, Dave, that you left off the end of Larry's message talking about baiting. Also, I'm not sure that anyone else cares who is right, you or him, other than the two of you. I've watched the two of you get into it on (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) The US didn't invade Iraq because Iraq was breaking US laws, though. The justification for the invasion was because Iraq had failed to live up to the sanctions imposed on them by the UN after the Gulf War. The UN set a deadline by which time (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I thought I made it clear that I was not making any reference to the U.N. resolution you are refering to. (...) You just ignored it again!!! (...) But it happened because of stupidity, thus it was Yet Another Stupid European War caused by (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) This does not answer my question. Because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't. (...) Or a genocide against different tribe from the ruling one? Or those of a given religion that aren't rebeling? Or a people or region that were forced into the (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
