| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Stan Pierce" |
| Date: |
28 Apr 2005 05:29:29 AM |
| Object: |
Re: More on Illegal Iraq war "proof" |
"Scott Gilbert" <scott5467@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62711e56.0504280151.707f6f4d@posting.google.com...
"Harry the Horse" <HarryAtTheStable@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<cx9be.5481188$Zm5.848341@news.easynews.com>...
"Anubis" <Anubis@spam.com> wrote in message
news:426d18b8.17928609@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:08:37 GMT, "Harry the Horse"
<HarryAtTheStable@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's because the US Congress declared war, first on terrorist
nations in general and then on Iraq specifically:
What terrorist act did Iraq commit against the United States?
You would have to ask Congress.
I know the answer to the question. Iraq committed no terrorist or
aggressive act towards the United States. The Iraq War was an unprovoked
act of aggression by the United States and Britain. I just wanted to see
whether you'd worked it out for yourself.
The Iraq war was a continuation of the kuwait conflict, at the
conclusion of which Iraq agreed not only to destroy its WMD, but to BE
SEEN TO HAVE DONE SO. Pouring chemicals onto the ground without
documenting that fact violated that obligation.
Having thumbed its nose at the UNs requirements, the Baath parties
chickens came home to roost when the US decided that if Iraq is not
bound by international law, then the US was similarly unbound.
You see, International Law only works if it is equally binding on all
parties. If the Baath party can thumb its nose at its obligations
under international law without consequence, it is absurd for the US
to act as if it cannot also do so.
This was the Baath parties single largest error. It was not the UN
which kept the US from destroying it, but the commitment of the US
populace to the notion of International law. By breaking that which
was holding the US at bay, the Baath party unwittingly unleashed its
own destruction.
I like your reasoning and agree with what you say but still there is no such
'thing ' as International Law. The words are used like a 'faith'.
As you know you can write books on Faith. Most of the History of
Philosophy is a history of people with strong 'beliefs'. They all had
strong uncompromising faith in being right about something....but sadly it
remains faith. No empirical facts. Bertrand Russell first blew the whistle
on them. There are others but he'll do.
Over the last thirty years the words surrounding the New Faith in the
'International Community' have sprung from universities with an agenda.
The New Faith uses the young priests from the universities to spread the
good word in the BBC and CNN and other churches and keeps using the words
International Law as though it actually exists. Like a religion it gathers
momentum the more people use the words and believe in them.
.
|
|
| User: "Sid Cochran" |
|
| Title: Re: More on Illegal Iraq war "proof" |
28 Apr 2005 08:15:03 AM |
|
|
"Stan Pierce" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:dW2ce.31962$5F3.17740@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Scott Gilbert" <scott5467@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62711e56.0504280151.707f6f4d@posting.google.com...
"Harry the Horse" <HarryAtTheStable@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<cx9be.5481188$Zm5.848341@news.easynews.com>...
"Anubis" <Anubis@spam.com> wrote in message
news:426d18b8.17928609@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:08:37 GMT, "Harry the Horse"
<HarryAtTheStable@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's because the US Congress declared war, first on terrorist
nations in general and then on Iraq specifically:
What terrorist act did Iraq commit against the United States?
You would have to ask Congress.
I know the answer to the question. Iraq committed no terrorist or
aggressive act towards the United States. The Iraq War was an
unprovoked
act of aggression by the United States and Britain. I just wanted to
see
whether you'd worked it out for yourself.
The Iraq war was a continuation of the Kuwait conflict, at the
conclusion of which Iraq agreed not only to destroy its WMD, but to BE
SEEN TO HAVE DONE SO. Pouring chemicals onto the ground without
documenting that fact violated that obligation.
Having thumbed its nose at the UNs requirements, the Baath parties
chickens came home to roost when the US decided that if Iraq is not
bound by international law, then the US was similarly unbound.
You see, International Law only works if it is equally binding on all
parties. If the Baath party can thumb its nose at its obligations
under international law without consequence, it is absurd for the US
to act as if it cannot also do so.
This was the Baath parties single largest error. It was not the UN
which kept the US from destroying it, but the commitment of the US
populace to the notion of International law. By breaking that which
was holding the US at bay, the Baath party unwittingly unleashed its
own destruction.
I like your reasoning and agree with what you say but still there is no
such 'thing ' as International Law. The words are used like a 'faith'.
As you know you can write books on Faith. Most of the History of
Philosophy is a history of people with strong 'beliefs'. They all had
strong uncompromising faith in being right about something....but sadly it
remains faith. No empirical facts. Bertrand Russell first blew the
whistle on them. There are others but he'll do.
Over the last thirty years the words surrounding the New Faith in the
'International Community' have sprung from universities with an agenda.
The New Faith uses the young priests from the universities to spread the
good word in the BBC and CNN and other churches and keeps using the words
International Law as though it actually exists. Like a religion it
gathers momentum the more people use the words and believe in them.
This argument is substantially correct. It has been a long-time fallacy
of the World federalist Movement to pursue "World Peace through
World Law,"not realizing that all efforts to date have failed to produce
a World Legislature with universal legitimacy. What we have instead
of "International Law" is (non-capitalized) customary internationa law,
the body of rules that most nations will apply in ordinary circumstnaces,
and as established by treaties between natinos.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duncan Patton" |
|
| Title: Re: More on Illegal Iraq war "proof" |
28 Apr 2005 10:08:09 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:15:03 -0500
"Sid Cochran" <sidcochran@cox.net> wrote:
=20
"Stan Pierce" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message=20
news:dW2ce.31962$5F3.17740@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[].
We don't need another layer of Government, we need a layer of protocols
for the resolution of multi-party international disputes. The problem
is that all the current Internationalists think in terms of a hierarchy
where none will be tolerated. =20
This means we must come to terms with a long-term anarchic situation=20
on the planet. Hopefully, where there is no law, logic can still suffice:
anarchy does not mean without order.
Dhu
=20
This argument is substantially correct. It has been a long-time fallacy
of the World federalist Movement to pursue "World Peace through
World Law,"not realizing that all efforts to date have failed to produce
a World Legislature with universal legitimacy. What we have instead
of "International Law" is (non-capitalized) customary internationa law,
the body of rules that most nations will apply in ordinary circumstnaces,
and as established by treaties between natinos.
=20
=20
=20
--=20
???????????????????????????????????????
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.
Save the Bagle!=20
Sun =D0hu
???????????????????????????????????????
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Duncan Patton" |
|
| Title: Re: More on Illegal Iraq war "proof" |
28 Apr 2005 10:01:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:29:29 GMT
"Stan Pierce" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
=20
"Scott Gilbert" <scott5467@hotmail.com> wrote in message=20
news:62711e56.0504280151.707f6f4d@posting.google.com...
"Harry the Horse" <HarryAtTheStable@hotmail.com> wrote in message=20
news:<cx9be.5481188$Zm5.848341@news.easynews.com>...
"Anubis" <Anubis@spam.com> wrote in message
news:426d18b8.17928609@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:08:37 GMT, "Harry the Horse"
<HarryAtTheStable@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's because the US Congress declared war, first on terrorist
nations in general and then on Iraq specifically:
What terrorist act did Iraq commit against the United States?
You would have to ask Congress.
I know the answer to the question. Iraq committed no terrorist or
aggressive act towards the United States. The Iraq War was an unprovo=
ked
act of aggression by the United States and Britain. I just wanted to =
see
whether you'd worked it out for yourself.
The Iraq war was a continuation of the kuwait conflict, at the
conclusion of which Iraq agreed not only to destroy its WMD, but to BE
SEEN TO HAVE DONE SO. Pouring chemicals onto the ground without
documenting that fact violated that obligation.
Having thumbed its nose at the UNs requirements, the Baath parties
chickens came home to roost when the US decided that if Iraq is not
bound by international law, then the US was similarly unbound.
You see, International Law only works if it is equally binding on all
parties. If the Baath party can thumb its nose at its obligations
under international law without consequence, it is absurd for the US
to act as if it cannot also do so.
This was the Baath parties single largest error. It was not the UN
which kept the US from destroying it, but the commitment of the US
populace to the notion of International law. By breaking that which
was holding the US at bay, the Baath party unwittingly unleashed its
own destruction.
=20
I like your reasoning and agree with what you say but still there is no s=
uch=20
'thing ' as International Law. The words are used like a 'faith'.
As you know you can write books on Faith. Most of the History of=20
Philosophy is a history of people with strong 'beliefs'. They all had=20
strong uncompromising faith in being right about something....but sadly i=
t=20
remains faith. No empirical facts. Bertrand Russell first blew the whis=
tle=20
Don't know what Russell proved, do you? He showed that you cannot prove th=
e=20
existence, or non existence, of God: any attempt to prove something about
God will create a paradox. =20
Dhu
on them. There are others but he'll do.
Over the last thirty years the words surrounding the New Faith in the=20
'International Community' have sprung from universities with an agenda.=
=20
The New Faith uses the young priests from the universities to spread the=
=20
good word in the BBC and CNN and other churches and keeps using the word=
s=20
International Law as though it actually exists. Like a religion it gathe=
rs=20
momentum the more people use the words and believe in them.=20
=20
=20
--=20
???????????????????????????????????????
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.
Save the Bagle!=20
Sun =D0hu
???????????????????????????????????????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anubis" |
|
| Title: Re: More on Illegal Iraq war "proof" |
28 Apr 2005 11:07:56 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:01:43 GMT, Duncan Patton <campbell@neotext.ca>
wrote:
Don't know what Russell proved, do you? He showed that you cannot prove the
existence, or non existence, of God: any attempt to prove something about
God will create a paradox.
He also showed that he could not prove that he existed to others.
--
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
--Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duncan Patton" |
|
| Title: Re: More on Illegal Iraq war "proof" |
28 Apr 2005 05:06:53 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:07:56 GMT
Anubis@spam.com (Anubis) wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:01:43 GMT, Duncan Patton <campbell@neotext.ca>
wrote:
=20
Don't know what Russell proved, do you? He showed that you cannot prove=
the
existence, or non existence, of God: any attempt to prove something abo=
ut
God will create a paradox.
=20
He also showed that he could not prove that he existed to others.
=20
He didn't have the advantage of a relitavistic physical model. To prove
existence, you need only communicate some concept or perception to another,
and then receive an unpredicted response logically derived from your initial
proposition. This proves not only your own existence, but also the other's.
This is a similar, but more powerful, proposition to Decartes' "I think the=
refore..."
Dhu
=20
--=20
=20
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html
=20
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
--Hermann Goering
--=20
???????????????????????????????????????
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.
Save the Bagle!=20
Sun =D0hu
???????????????????????????????????????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anubis" |
|
| Title: Re: More on Illegal Iraq war "proof" |
28 Apr 2005 07:39:43 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:06:53 GMT, Duncan Patton <campbell@neotext.ca>
wrote:
Don't know what Russell proved, do you? He showed that you cannot prove
the existence, or non existence, of God: any attempt to prove something about
God will create a paradox.
He also showed that he could not prove that he existed to others.
He didn't have the advantage of a relitavistic physical model.
LOL
To prove existence, you need only communicate some concept or perception to another,
and then receive an unpredicted response logically derived from your initial
proposition. This proves not only your own existence, but also the other's.
You are not an educated person, so you would not know about Turing's
Test. Look it up.
This is a similar, but more powerful, proposition to Decartes' "I think therefore..."
That's fine for convincing yourself that you exist, but it doesn't
prove to others that you exist.
--
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
--Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duncan Patton" |
|
| Title: Re: More on Illegal Iraq war "proof" |
28 Apr 2005 08:29:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:39:43 GMT
Anubis@spam.com (Anubis) wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:06:53 GMT, Duncan Patton <campbell@neotext.ca>
wrote:
=20
Don't know what Russell proved, do you? He showed that you cannot pr=
ove
the existence, or non existence, of God: any attempt to prove somet=
hing about
God will create a paradox.
=20
He also showed that he could not prove that he existed to others.
=20
He didn't have the advantage of a relitavistic physical model.
=20
LOL
=20
To prove existence, you need only communicate some concept or perception=
to another,
and then receive an unpredicted response logically derived from your ini=
tial
proposition. This proves not only your own existence, but also the othe=
r's.
=20
You are not an educated person, so you would not know about Turing's
Test. Look it up.
=20
Your knowledge of me is seriously limited. And I've noticed that _you_=20
don't pass: the level of predictability in your responses both here
and in other fora is to high to prove anything about you or me.
Dhu
This is a similar, but more powerful, proposition to Decartes' "I think =
therefore..."
=20
That's fine for convincing yourself that you exist, but it doesn't
prove to others that you exist.
=20
=20
--=20
=20
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html
=20
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
--Hermann Goering
--=20
???????????????????????????????????????
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.
Save the Bagle!=20
Sun =D0hu
???????????????????????????????????????
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anubis" |
|
| Title: Re: More on Illegal Iraq war "proof" |
28 Apr 2005 09:04:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:29:29 GMT, "Stan Pierce"
<ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
I like your reasoning and agree with what you say but still there is no such
'thing ' as International Law.
Just like there is no such things as:
* Separation of church and state
* Three branches of the US govt
* The right to privacy
--
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
--Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: More on Illegal Iraq war "proof" |
28 Apr 2005 09:25:11 AM |
|
|
"Anubis" <Anubis@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4270ed1e.7259078@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:29:29 GMT, "Stan Pierce"
<ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
I like your reasoning and agree with what you say but still there is no such
'thing ' as International Law.
Just like there is no such things as:
* Separation of church and state
* Three branches of the US govt
Can you explain why you think this
doesn't exist? I agree with you on the
others.
* The right to privacy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anubis" |
|
| Title: Re: More on Illegal Iraq war "proof" |
28 Apr 2005 11:06:51 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:25:11 -0500, "Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
* Three branches of the US govt
Can you explain why you think this
doesn't exist? I agree with you on the
others.
Look at the US Constitution. It states explicitly that the federal
judiciary is to be established by Congress as a creature of Congress,
not as any "third branch". That's why Congress must approve all
appointments to the federal judiciary.
The commies knew they could not legislate their agenda thru Congress,
not after McCarthy exposed them, so they went to work on the federal
judiciary, to the extent that today it is a rogue organization that
creates and repeals laws promulgated by the Congress and by the People
(as in state laws and state referendums).
--
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
--Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shel Scott WellDone" |
|
| Title: Re: More on Illegal Iraq war "proof" |
28 Apr 2005 04:19:47 PM |
|
|
(Anubis) wrote:
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
--Hermann Goering
You know, that is exactly how the hard left operates; demonize any
gov't that doesn't give in to their every demand to expand and finance
the public sector. Accuse them of being "un Canadian". Tell union
members they are being "attacked". Accuse their political opponents
of "selling out for nothing to the highest bidder" (one of my favorite
lefty quotes, perfect in its meaningless stupidity).
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duncan Patton" |
|
| Title: Re: More on Illegal Iraq war "proof" |
28 Apr 2005 05:08:48 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:19:47 -0700
Shel Scott <WellDone> wrote:
Anubis@spam.com (Anubis) wrote:
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
--Hermann Goering
You know, that is exactly how the hard left operates; demonize any
gov't that doesn't give in to their every demand to expand and finance
"Hard Left" eh? You, uh, mebbe a little confused on those traffic circle
thingies, right?
Dhu
the public sector. Accuse them of being "un Canadian". Tell union
members they are being "attacked". Accuse their political opponents
of "selling out for nothing to the highest bidder" (one of my favorite
lefty quotes, perfect in its meaningless stupidity).
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
--=20
???????????????????????????????????????
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.
Save the Bagle!=20
Sun =D0hu
???????????????????????????????????????
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
