1
   

Protesting Is Suspicious Behavior?

 
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 11:40 pm
You can give any excuse you want for doing so, but you did in fact ignore them. It's okay though, I know it can be tough having to face down real facts and all. :wink:
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 11:48 pm
Sometimes it's okay to break the law, Dys. The problems arise when one assumes there are no consequences involved.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2003 11:54 pm
dyslexia wrote:
just out of curiousity scrat, is there ever a situation when it's ok to break the law intentionally?

If you are not causing actual physical harm to another and are willing to stand and accept the consequences for your actions, yes, I think so.
0 Replies
 
shoesharper
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2003 02:42 am
scrat -- You present me with some "real facts", then we'll talk about it. I don't think you have any.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2003 10:30 am
shoesharper wrote:
scrat -- You present me with some "real facts", then we'll talk about it. I don't think you have any.

Okay, let's go through them one by one, and you tell me--you tell us--which ones aren't facts:

#1 The Gulf War ended in a ceasefire agreement that obligated Saddam and Iraq to take certain actions and to refrain from others.

Well? So, is that a fact or not? (Or maybe it's a "fact" but isn't "real"?) Rolling Eyes

We're waiting... Cool
0 Replies
 
Gromit
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 03:01 pm
I have read through this thread and I have noticed patently absurd tactics of persuasion. How can one individual on an internet chat site know what is going on? Are they in the highest levels of government and privy to inside information that the rest of us lack? They simplify the discussion by implying they have the "facts", while the rest of us are mere idiots grabbing at fantasies. That doesn't constitute an argument, but is just simple browbeating and a form of abuse.

How can you be so cocksure? Are you very connected as an insider? Entire nations and highly intelligent and informed people came to the exact opposite conclusion, so it is not "obvious" that you are right and everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong. You browbeat by insulting others by saying that they don't have the facts. How is it you are the only one with the facts and you didn't share it with European government officials and the UN members when they were debating this issue?Moreover, since you appear to have all the facts and inside knowledge, you probably would be very high up in government, and not be someone who gets on a internet site to muckrake, argue, and bait common, lay people. I would like my source of information to be more reliable than an opinionated forum. So I would take anything you say with a big grain of salt, as it is very unlikely you are an expert in the area. With all due respect.

If the US could take up the fighting at anytime legally and by right, then why did they ostensibly need to use the argument of WMD to legitimize the re -engagement. By all "right", they could have just invaded. It must be more complex than that. By the way, this fact of cease-fire and re-engagement was never really popularized by the administration or the media, and it seems a pity, and a wasted opportunity, as it would have simplified everything nice, neat, and tidy.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2003 10:31 am
Gromit - I stated the facts as I know them. The Gulf War did end in a ceasefire. Saddam did not live up to his obligations under said ceasefire. When one party breaks a ceasefire, the other party has a legitimate right to resume the military action which was stopped on the basis of the broken ceasefire. UN 1441 authorizes the US to take any action necessary to compell Iraq to comply. These are not my opinions; I call them facts because they are well documented and easily checked by anyone who is more interested in reality than his or her own opinion.

Now, as to browbeating; shoesharper decided to hurl personal insults, apparently because he (she?) does not like my point of view. He (she?) stated that I had offered no facts, so I offered to run down my list and challenge him (her?) as to which ones were or were not facts. You will note no further comments from shoesharper.

Calling a fact a fact, is not "browbeating". Getting nasty with someone who is just pointing out facts, is.

And lest you are actually unfamiliar with the facts I've cited, here's a partial citation of the text of UN Resolution 1441 (I've bolded the key passages):

Quote:
The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

full text

Now, those are the facts.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2003 12:17 pm
Scrat wrote:

Now, those are the facts.


I don't doubt that you might be right, Scrat, but certainly you aren't offereing FACTS but textes from the DRAFT RESOLUTION of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2003 02:07 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Scrat wrote:

Now, those are the facts.


I don't doubt that you might be right, Scrat, but certainly you aren't offereing FACTS but textes from the DRAFT RESOLUTION of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America. :wink:

Since you clearly visited the link I offered, it surprises me that you failed to note that it reads quite clearly at the top (just below the title you mention) "[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]". I simply cited it since it was the first link I found that contained the text of the resolution. You are welcome to go to the UN site and verify that the text was adopted as quoted.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2003 02:11 pm
Well, I read that as well - but I don't agree that a resolution proves FACTS - althought it is fact per se, of course :wink:
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2003 03:11 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Well, I read that as well - but I don't agree that a resolution proves FACTS - althought it is fact per se, of course :wink:

Well, it certainly supports the statements I made. :wink: As to what is or is not a "fact"... I doubt you could reasonably argue that the Gulf War did not end in a ceasefire for instance, though you might argue whether 1441 is intended to authorize the type of action the US-led coalition took, but it seems a stretch to pretend there's no reasonable argument from the other side.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 05:13 pm
grottomaster


Quote:
A nuke in Washington DC on Monday morning would be the biggest blessing this country ever experienced.



Shear stupidity. Go back to sucking your thumb.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2003 10:10 am
hobitbob wrote:
Try emailing the whitehouse. There is an applet in place that makes one answer many questions before you can post a message. one of those questions, "is this message in favour of the presdent's policies," if given a "no" response results in the inability to actually send the message.

I just checked, and you are wrong. But don't take my word for it, here's the link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

On the White House contact page you have the choice of simple mailto: links to email the President or VP using your email program OR using their "Webmail" system. According to the description, "White House Web Mail is designed to provide an additional means by which individuals can communicate with the White House and receive automated, timely, and substantive responses on a wide variety of issues. This system provides U.S. citizens and residents with the opportunity to submit a written message and allows the President and his staff real-time access to their comments. However, due to the large volume of e-mail submissions, we cannot assure that each message will be personally reviewed."

The Webmail system is available in addition to, not in place of, the ability to simply send the president an email. Your claim that it is the only way to email the President is false.

Now, as to your claim that the system doesn't allow you to send comments that don't support the President, I just this minute sent a message using the Webmail system, and selected "I want to write a differing opinion to President Bush". Here's the system response, copied from the resulting page:

Quote:
Write a Differing Opinion

Thank you for your submission. A confirmation message will be sent to your e-mail address. You must reply to this message within 72 hours for your request to be processed.

I'm genuinely curious here... did you write this based on bad information you got from another source, or were you just making $hit up? :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 04:42:53