Canada withdraws from UN organization.

[therealUT]

He see's no difference with the way the US tries to avoid collateral damage at all costs and terrorists primary goal is to achieve as much of it as possible. You're right, there is no use in debating.

At all costs? Really?

 

[rjd970]

At all costs? Really?

Yes, given the strike/engagement needs to happen, we do take every precaution necessary. Otherwise we wouldn't bother with the cost and expense of pinpointing the engagement, we would just carpet bomb the entire area. You can turn this into an argument about whether the engagement needs to take place and roll that into my argument, but I'm not playing that game.

Once hostilities have started, the way the US conducts itself is different then the way a terrorist would.

 

[therealUT]

Yes, given the strike/engagement needs to happen, we do take every precaution necessary. Otherwise we wouldn't bother with the cost and expense of pinpointing the engagement, we would just carpet bomb the entire area. You can turn this into an argument about whether the engagement needs to take place and roll that into my argument, but I'm not playing that game.

Once hostilities have started, the way the US conducts itself is different then the way a terrorist would.

I guess I would construe "avoids at all costs" would include the necessity of the entire campaign.

You are right: "terrorists" aim at a small amount of civilians and kill them; we aim at a small amount of "terrorists" and kill vast amounts of "terrorists".

Do terrorists present an existential threat to the U.S.? Or, are their actions, on the macro scale, more analogous to harassment?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Iraq: we invaded a country that posed us no imminent threat; thus, we violated the Geneva Convention. Iraq was a preventive war (not sanctioned by the GC) not a preemptive war (no matter what Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld stated).

Afghanistan: we invaded a country in order to track down a terrorist organization, the leader of which was offered up to the international community to be tried. Moreover, we have killed hundreds and thousands of civilians in Afghanistan, and their deaths were often foreseen.



The scope of our response, and the irresponsibility with which we have carried it out, are absurd and criminal.



As an individual, you should probably "bow out" of any governing body/system then.



Thanks Rumsfeld.


Always great to say that we will knowingly kill innocent persons with our munitions but that the responsibility lies with someone else.

Iraq: we carried out UN mandates, period. Your absurdity about imminent threat is fantasy. The retrospective "I told you so" is awe inspiring. The Geneva Convention silliness presumes the UN mandate to be unenforceable, which is utterly silly.

In Afghanistan we destroyed a government that was intertwined with and harboring a terrorist organization that had recently killed a lot of Americans. You can try to separate the two crowds to your heart's content, but it's senseless. You know, just like I, that categorizing people as civilian Afghanis is moot.

Again, point me to the criminal portion and I'm open to listening. Thus far, you've made up a bunch of crap to support your academic argument. Your typical argument about having been on the ground there making you an expert doesn't work here. We had and have clear reason for being on the ground in Afghanistan. Whether we should let go of that is debatable, but we aren't illegally prosecuting the war.

Don't be a dumbass with the argument about bowing out of coalition. Trying to do something as stupid as equating my living within a governmental framework to a voluntary and useless coalition incapable of carrying out its function is beneath you - I think.

I appreciate the Rumsfeld comment. The day you can hold a candle to that guy in any military, strategic or diplomatic conversation you should be proud.

The final point is again the same. You continue to whine about collateral damage, as long as it's the US that you get to ***** about. You continuously educate the rest of us here about how we have fomented this retribution, almost to the point of your sanctioning the actions, only to turn around and whine about our retribution.

Frankly, our unwillingness to resort to total war is the only thing we fail in when responding. We should send a very clear message that when the boys in green suits show up, large numbers of people, particularly combatants, are going to cease to exist. Our inability to be committed to that premise indirectly foments the terrorists. I'm fine with accepting that collateral damage is a part of the process. I don't like it any more than anyone else, but the human shield has become the defense that allows dictators, despots and turd tossers to maintain their brave faces. I'm all for wiping the smile off.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I guess I would construe "avoids at all costs" would include the necessity of the entire campaign.

You are right: "terrorists" aim at a small amount of civilians and kill them; we aim at a small amount of "terrorists" and kill vast amounts of "terrorists".

Do terrorists present an existential threat to the U.S.? Or, are their actions, on the macro scale, more analogous to harassment?

there is no part of anything, written or otherwise, which requires anyone in our defense apparatus to protect the US against "existential" threats. Your eye for an eye view is wholly insufficient for dealing with bad guys. Overwhelming is the word that should apply to every operation we undertake. Anything less is asking for future problems. If the issue doesn't warrant annihilation, we should send the NYPD. Overwhelming response to provocation certainly doesn't live up to the illegal standard you're trying to shoehorn here.

 

[therealUT]

there is no part of anything, written or otherwise, which requires anyone in our defense apparatus to protect the US against "existential" threats. Your eye for an eye view is wholly insufficient for dealing with bad guys. Overwhelming is the word that should apply to every operation we undertake. Anything less is asking for future problems. If the issue doesn't warrant annihilation, we should send the NYPD. Overwhelming response to provocation certainly doesn't live up to the illegal standard you're trying to shoehorn here.

Actually, 'overwhelming' use of force which will result in civilian casualties is currently illegal under international law via a treaty (the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Condition) to which the U.S. is a signatory.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Actually, 'overwhelming' use of force which will result in civilian casualties is currently illegal under international law via a treaty (the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Condition) to which the U.S. is a signatory.

only to the extent that civilian casualties were steeped in wanton neglect or unnecessary. Semantics won't change the debate either. If we could be hammered for illegalities in this, the UN would stumble all over itself to shove it in our earholes.

 

[gsvol]

Leaving the UN is an option, but is it the right option? I don't know. I do think we as a government should rethink our position there and what it is we hope to accomplish, but I don't see that happenning as our own government is just as inept as the UN.

I have to admire your tenacity. Once you get hold you just don't let go. Bravo to you. One caveat I'll give you, don't cut off your nose to spite your face. If you're not careful, there will come a time you are so convinced your right that the truth will no longer matter. Don't become that person. Challenge yourself to occasionally admitting you might be wrong. A humble man wins more hearts than a prideful one. And yes, I do accept I am wrong quite often. It's okay to be wrong. That's how we learn. Everyday I learn more. Peace.

The problem with the UN is that it has become (and
may have been from the start) totally corrupt.

I don't know how much you know about Mugabe and
Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) but I suggest you pick
up one of Ian Smith's books on the topic.

I forgot to post the following pic when I was replying
to your post accusing me of being a zombie.

You describe yourself as a 'patriot', if that be true then
it would appear that you would be diametrically opposed
to everything Obama stands for.

PS: It's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every
way."

 

[therealUT]

only to the extent that civilian casualties were steeped in wanton neglect or unnecessary.

Negative; only to the extent that the casualties are foreseen (which they are) and the use of force is excessive (which you are arguing for)

Semantics won't change the debate either. If we could be hammered for illegalities in this, the UN would stumble all over itself to shove it in our earholes.

The U.N. should be "shoving it in our earholes"; hence, my earlier complaint about the U.N. Unfortunately, as much as everyone thinks that the U.N. is completely anti-U.S., they very often let the U.S. slide when the U.S. is in violation of laws of war. I suspect that this is because the U.N. knows who is footing the bill.

This leads me, again, to ask the question of why it is that many "red-blooded Americans" are so anti-U.N.? It would make much more sense for the rest of the world to be anti-U.N. since the U.N. does nothing to reign in American aggression.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Negative; only to the extent that the casualties are foreseen (which they are) and the use of force is excessive (which you are arguing for)



The U.N. should be "shoving it in our earholes"; hence, my earlier complaint about the U.N. Unfortunately, as much as everyone thinks that the U.N. is completely anti-U.S., they very often let the U.S. slide when the U.S. is in violation of laws of war. I suspect that this is because the U.N. knows who is footing the bill.

This leads me, again, to ask the question of why it is that many "red-blooded Americans" are so anti-U.N.? It would make much more sense for the rest of the world to be anti-U.N. since the U.N. does nothing to reign in American aggression.

Excessive is your problem. There is no teeth in a complaint that let's a word like excessive into the language. In my mind, there is no such thing as excessive in fighting enemy combatants.

The UN isn't completely anti US, just the members are. The staff knows who is paying the bills so they can continue their shams of jobs.

Americans are anti UN because it regularly comes out with utterly stupid positions because its processes get hijacked by lending voice to those who shouldn't have voice.

I notice you like to use your philosophy lunatic approach like your peers and jump all over American "aggression" as your escape from those of us less educated. It doesn't work. Maybe the rest of the world laughs at you just as it does the UN in conversations about worldwide aggression. Maybe they understand that American lack of aggression has been its downfall since Eisenhower left office.

 

[therealUT]

Excessive is your problem. There is no teeth in a complaint that let's a word like excessive into the language. In my mind, there is no such thing as excessive in fighting enemy combatants.

You are correct; excessive should be defined as any operation undertaken in which it was foreseen that even one noncombatant would be killed. Genuine accidents are excusable; dropping a JDAM on a city-block, thus destroying almost half of the city-block, results in the death of noncombatants.

The UN isn't completely anti US, just the members are. The staff knows who is paying the bills so they can continue their shams of jobs.

Americans are anti UN because it regularly comes out with utterly stupid positions because its processes get hijacked by lending voice to those who shouldn't have voice.

I notice you like to use your philosophy lunatic approach like your peers and jump all over American "aggression" as your escape from those of us less educated. It doesn't work. Maybe the rest of the world laughs at you just as it does the UN in conversations about worldwide aggression. Maybe they understand that American lack of aggression has been its downfall since Eisenhower left office.

America has shown an interesting way of expressing a lack of aggression:

- War in Vietnam
- Military Coup in Iran
- Military Coup in Pakistan
- Arming the Contras
- Arming the Iraqi's in their war of aggression against Iran
- Arming the Mujaheddin
- Invading Panama
- Invading Grenada
- Fighting a war against Iraq
- Bombing Iraq for almost 10 years
- Bombing Yugoslavia
- Fighting a war in Afghanistan
- Fighting another war in Iraq
- Bombing Libya
- Bombing Yemen
- Both invading and bombing Pakistan.

I apologize if I missed some confrontations in there.

 

[MG1968]

UT reads one book in theater and he turns into a moral relativist, there is no good and evil, there is no black and white, the world is composed of shades of gray and the death of a single civilian should result in an immediate war crimes tribunal for the US.

 

[therealUT]

UT reads one book in theater and he turns into a moral relativist, there is no good and evil, there is no black and white, the world is composed of shades of gray and the death of a single civilian should result in an immediate war crimes tribunal for the US.

Where did I say there is no "good and evil"?

 

[gsvol]

UT reads one book in theater and he turns into a moral relativist, there is no good and evil, there is no black and white, the world is composed of shades of gray and the death of a single civilian should result in an immediate war crimes tribunal for the US.

I'll back you on that one.

I distinctly remember unreal, who somehow always thinks he holds the moral high ground, saying in a discusssion with me that he didn't believe in the concept of good and evil.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I'll back you on that one.

I distinctly remember unreal, who somehow always thinks he holds the moral high ground, saying in a discusssion with me that he didn't believe in the concept of good and evil.

Reading this made me laugh VERY hard.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I'll back you on that one.

I distinctly remember unreal, who somehow always thinks he holds the moral high ground, saying in a discusssion with me that he didn't believe in the concept of good and evil.

Do you believe you can have sound morals and not believe in "good" and "evil" especially in a metaphysical sense?

 

[gsvol]

Do you believe you can have sound morals and not believe in "good" and "evil" especially in a metaphysical sense?

Yes.

However, unreal who has repeatedly called me a liar recently because I don't believe that Karl Marx is the original author or the end all of socialism or the moving force behind the current drive for the implimentation of socialism in America, or indeed worldwide, (a difference of opinion, not a lie on my part and an argument I am willing to back to the hilt,) implied that he never said he didn't believe there was no such thing as good and evil, that was either misleading or a blatant lie on his part, he has said just that.

His constant attempts to obfuscate are becoming humorous to me, in other words laughable.

Now back to the subject of the thread.

I happened to be listening to Radio Havana the night the communists captured King Haile Sallasi and overthrew the Ethiopian government. They told many lies about him and he was never heard from again and then what came was the Ethiopian Red Terror which saw the slaughter of most of the political opposition.

Where is the creep who led that coup and is a fugitive of the (whatever) UN court?

He is enjoying a life of style as the guest of Mugabe in Zimbabwe! The UN's new director of tourism.

Unreal, whose brand of moral realativism makes his dialectic thinking somehow morally superior to all others seems to think it is America who is to blame for everything and sees the UN as being the answer.

When the first UN confab was held in San Fransissyco to organize the UN, there were many prominent known communist involved.

What has the UN done for us? It has gotten us involved in the Korean and Vietnamese conflicts among other things.

Look at Cambodia, for 35 years the UN rejected membership to the government of Prince Sihanook, and I don't know of any human rights offense he was ever accused of but only six months after Pol Pot siezed control and initiated, on a per capita basis, the most devastating genocide of people in any one country in the history of the world, with the Castro brothers running a close second.

If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about the UN then I have nothing more to tell you.

The UN has constantly and habitually lauded tyrants and vilified countries that grant the most freedom to it's citizens.

Oh, and one more thing:

Second Amendment Freedom- Firearms Rights: United Nations To Convene Month Long Conference For International Gun Control Treaty In July

As Spain deals with a bailout to "save" the economy and the country, and while the country is engaged in its worst financial crisis in recent memory, the Spanish Parliament took time this week to push for adoption of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. This is the Treaty that will infringe on the US Constitution, the Second Amendment, and your right to self defense. The United Nations and specially invited anti firearms rights groups who want to eliminate our firearms freedoms will be convening at the UN July 2nd through the 27th to draft a Treaty to accomplish the goal of regulating firearms and accessories, and ultimately the disarming all of America.


Spain agreed with the drafters of the Treaty, with input from various international and US gun control groups, who want the “Urgent and essential” Treaty to;
"a) Include a golden rule that prohibits the authorization of arms transfers where there is a substantial risk that used to commit or facilitate the commission-¬ - serious violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law.
b) Allow a comprehensive coverage that includes controls on weapons, ammunition and related material and on ALL (emphasis added) transfers.
c) explicit regulation of solid systems of licensing, transparency and reporting.” 1


International gun ban groups are telling UN member states, including the United States, in unambiguous terms, to adopt this Treaty and clamp controls and international regulations on your firearms and ammunition, and all transfers, including purchase and sale of guns and ammunition. By the wording of the treaty, inclusion of the “and related material” provision would include parts, accessories, scopes, stocks, magazines, and the like. The regulations are limited only by the bureaucratic enforcers imagination. And, of course, there is the "licensing" provision that all signing Countries are required to implement.
------------------------

The Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty has a already met four times to draft the Treaty that will be submitted to the UN next month.

Its efforts are being supported by the lofty sounding UN Office for Disarmament Affairs. The Treaty formulation will be carried out by the 193 countries belonging to the UN. Representatives from other organizations, including the “A” list of American gun ban groups were invited to attend. 2

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

You are so damn strange. Have you considered getting laid? It might ease the tension a bit.

Best post so far in the month of June. I am really trying figure out who this guy is. He has the most interesting "perspective". Obviously anti-Obama. That much is clear. The rest is a riddle wrapped inside an enigma rolled up in a weird form of taco.

 

[gsvol]

Best post so far in the month of June. I am really trying figure out who this guy is. He has the most interesting "perspective". Obviously anti-Obama. That much is clear. The rest is a riddle wrapped inside an enigma rolled up in a weird form of taco.

Bite my taco Paco.

You and Weezer are keepers! :loco:

Actually I'm more of a third party type.

I would love for anyone, including you, to tell me why anyone could possibly be pro Obama.

Check out Ventura's latest book; Democrips and Rebloodlicans, chapter two details how G Washington, T Jefferson and J madison warned us about allowing political parties to take over the government.

Amazon.com: DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans: No More Gangs in Government (9781616084486): Jesse Ventura, Dick Russell: Books

If you actually think BHO gives a ratzazz about you or me, then you are badly mistaken.

I'm looking for one thousand volunteers to sign a petition to get a third party candidate on the ballot in Tennessee, we have to have a caucus and all write in the same candidates.

Pat Paulsen and Foster Brooks have gone south, some say they are underground in Mexico these days, If it's Mickey Mouse then some will want Minnie and some will want Mighty for VP, according to their sexual preferences, so I think we should boil it down to two choices.

First I was thinking of Ray Stevens and Larry the Cable Guy because I'm all for keeping things light heared but now I'm leaning more toward Jesse Ventura and Hulk Hogan, let the democrips and rebloodlicans wrestle with that?

Who's with me, sink or swim or take a walk toward the nearest body of water 'til you hat floats.

 

[MG1968]

Jesse Ventura? Hulk Hogan?

what little credibility you may have once had is now gone altogether.

 

[82_VOL_83]

When a bushel of wheat costs the same as a barrel of oil, nations that sponsor terrorism will police themselves.

 

[gsvol]

When a bushel of wheat costs the same as a barrel of oil, nations that sponsor terrorism will police themselves.

To whom do you attribute that quote?

What are you saying, you are a proponent of ehtanol?

Law of the Sea Hearings Point to Lame Duck Passage Strategy

Today, the Senate has two hearings scheduled on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). The Senate will have had three hearings on the LOST after today—yet, not for the purposes of educating Senators on the flaws versus the benefits of the treaty. These hearings are a pretext for a lame duck strategy to railroad the treaty through the Senate after the November election.
----------------------------

The question that these witnesses can’t sufficiently answer is, “What can’t you do today, because of the LOST, that you could do if the treaty were to be ratified?” The answer is nothing.
-----------------

But Reagan and others objected to the unaccountable international bureaucracy created by the treaty.
----------------------

The bottom line is that Senator John Kerry (D–MA) has been stacking hearings in favor of proponents of LOST. The first hearing this year included Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
--------------------

Kerry used a similar strategy the last time the Senate considered the LOST.

Jesse Ventura? Hulk Hogan?

what little credibility you may have once had is now gone altogether.

Remember, we are trying to put together a coalition of a 1,000 people to sign a petition to get a ticket on the ballot before November.

Who would be your two candidates?

And remember we are just one of 57 states and you can't win the presidency by carrying only one state so in essence we are only making a political statement, ie; we don't like either candidate. (That's a conerstone of party party philosophy.)

How about Tex Cobb and Pee Wee Herman, that could have balance that would be appealing to a wide spectrum of the electorate.

So who would be the two people you would write in?