Article 45.1

[insein]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Does your employer allow you to spend so much time on a message board while at work?

Well aparently he works for the Dept of defense in the NASA division, which accoridng to him does nothing anyway so i guess he has alot fo free time.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by insein
Well aparently he works for the Dept of defense in the NASA division, which accoridng to him does nothing anyway so i guess he has alot fo free time.

It's not free.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
You do seem to be missing the fact that in our Liberation of Kuwait Saddam signed a Ceasefire Agreement that was based on certian conditions. We waited 12 years and those conditions were never upheld. Thus legally. we are finished the Gulf War. because the Ceasefire treaty was null and void since one party violated it. Hence There was nothing illegal about this war.

Legally, the ceasfire agreement was with the UN and the US had no right to enforce it of its own accord. Legally, the US itself is in violation of the UN by invading Iraq.


I find it interesting warmongers will glady use international treaties when its convenient to back up their arguments, and then pretend international treaties are not binding when it suits them. I am forced to conclude warmongers believe treaties and international laws are for OTHER nations to follow, and not the US. Such an arrogant attitude would not be surprising.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by dilloduck
I'm tired Spidy---i can't keep up with y'all---if you are saying we committed a crime then charge us with it--and take us to some galactic court so we can hire a mouthpiece ---and then if convicted by this imaginary court we can come home to do our penance-if there is a home to come home to. You are ashamed to be an American and want someone to make you feel better. I can't help ya.

Don't tell me what I feel and think you person with sometimes arrogant attitudes. Take your blind patriotism and examine it closely for defects.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
It is not the responsibility of the United States to go around the world waging wars to correct injustices. Welcome to the planet Earth, there will always be evil dictators and always be injustices. The responsiblility of the United States government and its mililtary is to protect US, not anyone else. Or at least, it should be that way.

I agree and thats why we went to Iraq. To protect ourselves and our allies from a dictator with WMD's.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
then what of your 12 signs of Facism post where basically said we live in a facist society? Would you be alive right now if that were true?

Would you mind pointing out where in the 12 signs of fascism post I said we live in a fascism country please?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
No. You dont. You can disagree with the President or any other politician with whatever you want. But when you start underminding our nations security and giving morale to the terrorists your walking a fine line.

Would you please explain how expecting the President be held accountable for his actions undermines the nation's security and gives morale to the terrorists? Thanks.

Remember, I'M not the one who chose to break 45.1 of the Geneva Protocol. If somehow that makes the terrorists happy, its Shrub's fault, not mine.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
you are really running out of warnings Spidey! for the last time, curb your language!

I aplogize. Sometimes I forget only warmongers are allowed to hurl insults and tell people what they feel and think. I will edit my illegal post.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Would you mind pointing out where in the 12 signs of fascism post I said we live in a fascism country please?

When you posted it from this link.

http://www.mvp-seattle.org/pages/pageFascism.htm

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
Now i know who this is. ITs john kerry.

posted by spidythewonderjackass
"I never said they neccessarily constituted criminal acts

#2 I never said legitimate targets should not be bombed"


another post from spideytubaroll
I'm afraid your missing the point. The law is the law, period. And if President Bush is breaking the law, he is breaking the law. If you don't care about the law, that's fine, just say so.


I voted for the 87 billion before i voted against it.

I own 5 Suv's, but i just ride in them their not mine.

Im a war hero but im an anti-war hero too.

All begining to make sense.

Oh only if Shrub's unit had been called! Poor Shrub, how was he to know that joining the Nationa Guard and indicating he prefered to not go to Vietnam would mean he would sit out the whole war? He was so anxious to show the world what a great hero he was. He would not be satisfied with no simple silver and broze star, he wouldn't have quite till he got the medal of honor, and we might have even won the war!

 

[insein]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Oh only if Shrub's unit had been called! Poor Shrub, how was he to know that joining the Nationa Guard and indicating he prefered to not go to Vietnam would mean he would sit out the whole war? He was so anxious to show the world what a great hero he was. He would not be satisfied with no simple silver and broze star, he wouldn't have quite till he got the medal of honor, and we might have even won the war!

More signs of desparity and ignorance.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by insein
Well aparently he works for the Dept of defense in the NASA division, which accoridng to him does nothing anyway so i guess he has alot fo free time.

Maybe if I punched a clock with the government I could spend my work day doing something other than the job I was hired for.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Maybe if I punched a clock with the government I could spend my work day doing something other than the job I was hired for.

Itd be a sweet gig. Paycheck for surfing the web. I can dig it. Who says that? I forget.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
I know Psycho could dig it!

Thats the asshole im looking for. Although now dealing with Spidey, psycho looks like a Bush-loving Republican.

 

[MtnBiker]

Get the shovel.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Again what part dont you understand. Treaties are made and broken according to the will of the nation involved. Hence making International law as a criminal law virtually irrelevant. There is no body to enforce it. Any nation bound by it, is bound volentarily and essentially can ignore it whenever if feels like it. Again hence the problem with international law.

Ive simply got to be amazed at someone trying to argue with someone who has been studying international law and international community for the last few years and is working on a law degree with an emphasis in international law and simply ignores them. Amazing.

Again what part do you not understand? Treaties made by the United States can only be made or broken by the SENATE

Would you care to tell me when the SENATE voted to toss out the Geneva Convention? I DIDN'T THINK SO.

Again, what part do you not understand? The people responsible for enforcing Federal Laws are the same people responsible for enforcing treaty violations. This is made clear by the 6th Article READ the 6th Article READ the 6th Article


Gee, that's great, you're working on a law degree. You must know what you're talking about. Well guess what, my father, my grandfather, my best friend, my aunt, my uncle (and his entire familiy), and my cousin have FINISHED their law degrees and passed the bars in their respective state, and my girlfriend will have her degree at the end of the month - and they think you're wrong.

Since you're such a legal smarty pants, care to tell me where in the Constitution is says the President can make and break treaties without the approval of the SENATE?

While you're at it international law genius, care to explain why other countries have to follow international laws and we don't?

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Get the shovel.

That could be applied a couple of different ways in this thread.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by spillmind
with all due respect, evil

with all the name calling and the sparks going back and forth, i still respect your opinion very much, and i hope that is reciprocated. don't take the remarks meant mostly for OCA and insein directly at you. my error.

he does have a couple points. that's all. *shrugs* sorry if you hate his guts.

And I should say I hope no one here takes anything I say personally, that is, except Rambo

 

[insein]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
And I should say I hope no one here takes anything I say personally, that is, except Rambo

Not only do i not take it personally, i don't take it realistically either. Ive created a thread where you can tell us what you would do to stop terrorism. Go respond.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
1) Yes. Every war plan accounts for possible civilian losses.
2) No. No.
3) I agree Bush is our president yes. He is ultimately the commander in chief so yes he's responsible for everything. A war plan is approved by him and Rumsfield. Casualty estimates are conveyed. War should not be waged by men without a conscience for then those lives that are lost will be in veign. Bush knows whats at stake.

1) Is that a fact? Would you mind telling us how many civilians losses the Pentagon war plan took into account, and how they verified this figure, considering they "don't do body counts" ?

2) Then what does 45.1 mean if it doesn't mean what i says?