AMAZING speech made by Al Gore...

[KeyboardJockey]

Show me.

BG's point about nuclear tech transfer to other nato countries breaches the NPT. For example; the UK's nuclear weapons tech would have stopped with freefall bombs. But the US has helped to equip the UK withmultiwarhead Polaris and Trident missiles. Plus the fact that the Thatcher govt allowed Cruise to be stationed inthe UK which was a jump in the type of and number of nuclear weapons in the UK.

Then you have all the nations where the US has involved itself in destabilsing or invading countries from Italy to Iraq. Which also breachUN regs.

Now for a definition of a treaty and two examples. There is a big difference between something like an EU regulation such as 1334/2000 which controls certain items for export from the EU and things such as the fast track extradition scheme where UK subjects can be extradited to the
US with less protection fromthe UK courts. The formeris a supranational treaty freely entered into in by soveriegn governments -- the latter is more along the lines of the result of the UK being threatened in some way bythe US. These threats can be economic, poitical or military - unfortuneatly we won't find out what the nature of what threats were made due to the Offical Secrets Act.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

What is your point?

The point is the US has only once since the mid 1920's had it's territory attacked by another nation whereas the US has time and time again interferred with the activities (no matter how benign they may be ) of other nations. From the interference with Italian elections after WWII right though to dodgy WTO regulations that prevent poor nations helping their own people out of poverty.

 

[TAE]

Al-Qaeda attacked us. They are hiding in Pakistan (and elsewhere). We go to wherever they are, and bring justice to them. This was promised on 9/20/2001. It has been delivered again and again since. Get used to it. It will continue.

Al-Qaeda is not a nation. Al-Qaeda was hiding in hamburg prior to 9/11 and now have aligned groups all over the world. They are criminals and should be dealt with as such.
The US is a nation, and the continued attacks against other nations (which have neither attacked nor made specific threats against the US) are a clear breach of the UN charter.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Al-Qaeda is not a nation. Al-Qaeda was hiding in hamburg prior to 9/11 and now have aligned groups all over the world. They are criminals and should be dealt with as such.
The US is a nation, and the continued attacks against other nations (which have neither attacked nor made specific threats against the US) are a clear breach of the UN charter.

I know that, you know that but will RY open up his history book and inform himself- I think not.

Its sad that a nation forged in the fires of revolution and the desire to be free fromthe opressions of the British (German actually) monarchy can produce such closed minded ness as is being shown by some US posters.

I never used to be anti american (the govt not the people I might add) until I saw thier depredations across the world. If they can do this to me just think how the actions of the US Govt are percieved across the Islamic world. If you wanted to create a policy that would recruit and bolster terrorism then the current US policy is a solid gold policy of it's type.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I know that, you know that but will RY open up his history book and inform himself- I think not.

Its sad that a nation forged in the fires of revolution and the desire to be free fromthe opressions of the British (German actually) monarchy can produce such closed minded ness as is being shown by some US posters.

I never used to be anti american (the govt not the people I might add) until I saw thier depredations across the world. If they can do this to me just think how the actions of the US Govt are percieved across the Islamic world. If you wanted to create a policy that would recruit and bolster terrorism then the current US policy is a solid gold policy of it's type.

Now now, it's not the fault of the US govt that pesky innocent civilians become collateral damage when the US "takes out" terrorists!

At least that's what the compassionless scum of Rogue Yam's ilk would like us to believe.

 

[rogue yam]

I seem to remember a couple of Bush speeches about his God giving him a dream or guidance or something. I also seem to remember Ms. Coultier (sp?) making some very pro-Christain statements. There was also some ruckus about teaching Intelligent Design as a science to American children.

Put down the bong, kid. What you say about Pres. Bush is so vague and noncommital as to invite scorn. Ann Coulter is a private citizen (one of 300 million) who, like us all, can say whatever she wants. ID is an issue that is being resolved (quite well so far, to my mind) through our existing institutions. So again, what is your point?

 

[rogue yam]

As for the innocence of your victims - well, I guess they can't make an argument in their own defense now, can they?

The issue is not the innocence of the victims. The issue is whether or not we are targeting them. Get a grip.

 

[rogue yam]

Al-Qaeda is not a nation. ... They are criminals and should be dealt with as such.

In 2004, America had a Presidential election where this was a central issue. The guy who agreed with you lost.

 

[TAE]

If a suicide bomber in tel-aviv blew up a bus full of civilians in order to kill a single israeli soldier, would you say it's ok because he did not target the civilians?

 

[TAE]

In 2004, America had a Presidential election where this was a central issue. The guy who agreed with you lost.

The fact that he lost says nothing about whether he was right or wrong about one of the many issues which decided the election.

Now let me ask you this:
If AQ said: "Ok - you win" and OBL gave himself up, what would happen?

 

[spring-peeper]

The issue is not the innocence of the victims. The issue is whether or not we are targeting them. Get a grip.

Why did you chose to attack these people while they were eating - when young children and other innocents were around then?

What you call collateral damage, I call innocent lives.

Tomato - tomaaaato

 

[rogue yam]

The US is a nation, and the continued attacks against other nations (which have neither attacked nor made specific threats against the US) are a clear breach of the UN charter.

When signing the U.N. charter, the U.S never agreed that we would allow anyone else to determine whether or how we would defend ourselves. In fact, the U.S. Constitution simply doesn't allow such power to be transfered to anyone other than the President of the United States. I know that you wish that this wasn't so, but your wishes are as nothing compared to our laws.

 

[spring-peeper]

Put down the bong, kid. What you say about Pres. Bush is so vague and noncommital as to invite scorn. Ann Coulter is a private citizen (one of 300 million) who, like us all, can say whatever she wants. ID is an issue that is being resolved (quite well so far, to my mind) through our existing institutions. So again, what is your point?

It's all about appearances.

Your media makes a very convincing argument that you are an evangelical country who has no respect for other cultures.

Add that to your total disregard for your allies borders and you have a very nasty looking package.

 

[TAE]

When signing the U.N. charter, the U.S never agreed that we would allow anyone else to determine whether or how we would defend ourselves.

Actually, regarding the when and how, that's exactly what you did. And I know that you wish that this wasn't so.

 

[spring-peeper]

When signing the U.N. charter, the U.S never agreed that we would allow anyone else to determine whether or how we would defend ourselves. In fact, the U.S. Constitution simply doesn't allow such power to be transfered to anyone other than the President of the United States. I know that you wish that this wasn't so, but your wishes are as nothing compared to our laws.

The UN can over-ride member countries governments? Ohhh- I don't think I like that.

I thought it was more of a partnership.

Silly me.

 

[rogue yam]

If a suicide bomber in tel-aviv blew up a bus full of civilians in order to kill a single israeli soldier, would you say it's ok because he did not target the civilians?

If a suicide bomber in tel-aviv blew up a bus full of nothing but Israeli soldiers, would you say this was ok? I wouldn't.

 

[rogue yam]

Now let me ask you this:
If AQ said: "Ok - you win" and OBL gave himself up, what would happen?

What's your point?

 

[TAE]

If a suicide bomber in tel-aviv blew up a bus full of nothing but Israeli soldiers, would you say this was ok? I wouldn't.

No, but the question was about targetting innocent civilians.

What's your point?

Just answer the question and you'll find out.

 

[rogue yam]

Why did you chose to attack these people while they were eating...

Oh, jeeze, did we use the wrong fork? I'm mortified!

(Wake up. We attacked them where they were because they were there.)

 

[rogue yam]

No, but the question was about targetting innocent civilians.

What you say is false. Innocent civilians were not targeted. You know this. Why do you say otherwise?

 

[rogue yam]

Just answer the question and you'll find out.

You bore me.

 

[spring-peeper]

What you say is false. Innocent civilians were not targeted. You know this. Why do you say otherwise?

It was a clusmy attempt cover up for my mis-use of the word "targetted".

I should have just apologized to begin with.

I retract the post in question and apologize for any offense that my post has caused.

 

[rogue yam]

It's all about appearances.

Your media makes a very convincing argument...

You simply must learn not to believe everything you hear. Besides, it is not all about appearances. To the terrorists who we lit up, it is about whether or not one's ass got lit up. Spin is wonderful, unless you're dead.

 

[rogue yam]

I retract the post in question and apologize for any offense that my post has caused.

Accepted. Thank you.

 

[TAE]

What you say is false. Innocent civilians were not targeted. You know this. Why do you say otherwise?

I gave you the example of a bus full of civilians being blown up because an 'enemy' is on board. Substitute the israeli soldier for an AQ leader. Would you blow the bus up if (for some reason) you could not arrest the guy?

 

[TAE]

You bore me.

Please stop avoiding difficult questions via insults.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Please stop avoiding difficult questions via insults.

RY has a lot of form for that as I've found out myself. Took me four days of pressure to get him to give me a list of nations 'liberated' by the USA and it turned out to be a load of old pony.

 

[spring-peeper]

You simply must learn not to believe everything you hear. Besides, it is not all about appearances. To the terrorists who we lit up, it is about whether or not one's ass got lit up. Spin is wonderful, unless you're dead.

That's what really sucks though - it is about appearances.

If it were not for appearances, why is your internal propaganda machine is working overtime to promote US unity?

 

[rogue yam]

I gave you the example of a bus full of civilians being blown up because an 'enemy' is on board. Substitute the israeli soldier for an AQ leader. Would you blow the bus up if (for some reason) you could not arrest the guy?

There is no precise calculus that applies to human life. You and I both know this. If there were twenty top AQ guys and one "innocent" driver, the button would be pushed. If there were twenty women and children and possibly one low-level AQ drone, we would hold off. Where, exactly, between these two extremes the line should be drawn no one can say for sure. So what? This is obvious. Why is it my responsibility, and mine alone, to bring intelligence and rationality to these threads?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

There is no precise calculus that applies to human life. You and I both know this. If there were twenty top AQ guys and one "innocent" driver, the button would be pushed. If there were twenty women and children and possibly one low-level AQ drone, we would hold off. Where, exactly, between these two extremes the line should be drawn no one can say for sure. So what? This is obvious.

This not the same situation that the British were placed in in WWII. We had no alternative bearing in mind the intellegence and technology available at the time to area bomb German industrial areas. This excuse is not one that is available to your government and all it has done is create more embittered people who are now fodder to the terrorists. You can't win by these actions.

Why is it my responsibility, and mine alone, to bring intelligence and rationality to these threads?

ROFLAMO