5 Congress Members Arrested at Sudan Protest

Nevertheless and notwithstanding what the nattering naybobs nag about,
thank heavens that we have an unwavering leader who will show us the way to a lasting peace and unequivocal victory in Iraq.

0 Replies

What unwavering leader are you talking about, Snood? I know of no "unwavering leader" unless you are referring to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She will set us on the right path!

0 Replies

Which in no way will hinder us from the steady progress toward lasting peace and victory in Iraq, led there by a visionary George Bush.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

But, nimh is concerned about war! He is Antiwar. He must have also been Anti-war when six million innocents were being murdered in the gas chambers by the SS. There are no just wars--right, nimh?

You dont actually even bother reading the posts you respond to, do you?

Here, I'll repost it for you:

nimh wrote:

So war is strictly a last resort. Only in the most extreme of emergencies can war, IMO, be justified. [..] when it comes to invading a country, only one excuse could possibly count: to stop an ongoing genocide. To save people from a genocide thats happening right now. That's what we thought we were doing in Kosovo.

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

nimh wrote:
The UN has no army, has it? Check.

Bravo! I see that you have made it to a UN website.

Now, if you actually click on that logo, you'll be sure to read things like these...

Quote:

Who decides to dispatch a UN peacekeeping operation and who is in charge on the ground?

If over 40% of the Security Council member states, or any of the UK, France, the US, China or Russia disagrees - there is no UN mission.

The UN cant send out an army of its own; it depends entirely on the authorisation of the majority of the countries on the Security Council, which has to include all the veto-wielding countries - such as the US.

Quote:

The UN does not have an army of its own; for its military missions it depends on the armies of its member states to "lend" it their forces.

Quote:

Peacekeeping troops, popularly known as Blue Helmets, participate in UN peacekeeping under terms that are carefully negotiated by their Governments and remain under the overall authority of those Governments while serving under UN operational command.

The authority to deploy peacekeepers remains with the Government that volunteered them, as does responsibility for pay, disciplinary and personnel matters.

Even as the UN sends out a mission, since it does not have an army of its own, it depends on soldiers and officers who remain under the responsibility and authority of their respective countries.

Ergo,

nimh wrote:

The UN has no army, has it? Check.

It does not have the authority to force any of its member states to deploy their armies. Check.

[..] The UN can only do that, which its member states, or at least a majority of it including all veto-wielding Security Council members, agree it to do. Thats what it's limited to.

[..] And the thing is: you wouldnt want it any other way. If the UN were to demand its own army, you'd be howling about the danger of world government.

[..] The annoying thig is that all this has been explained here time and over again, but people like you keep ignoring such facts when they get in the way of some nice rhetorical snideness.

Check?

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

I assume by that last remark you mean to imply I'm a racist. So you explain to me. How does laughing at George(a day late and a dollar short)Clooney translate to you calling me racist?

It translated to you apparently not giving a f*ck about a genocide thats occurring in Africa.

Now how did I come to that conclusion? Hmmm, lemme see.

There's a thread about the ongoing mass slaughter of people in Darfur - a genocide happening right now - and what people do about it.

You come into the thread, and see in the topic nothing better than fodder to crack a joke about George Clooney. Ha ha. Oh, and to make your next two posts about him and those darned Hollywood liberals as well.

Hhmmm... yeah, that showed real concern on your part.

And yeah, I do wonder whether you would have come into a thread about the Holocaust, as it was happening, to make some wisecracks about Charlie Chaplin and rail about the political antics of moviestars. Or whether you would have taken a different approach with a genocide like that. In Europe.

0 Replies

Quote:

So war is strictly a last resort. Only in the most extreme of emergencies can war, IMO, be justified. [..] when it comes to invading a country, only one excuse could possibly count: to stop an ongoing genocide. To save people from a genocide thats happening right now. That's what we thought we were doing in Kosovo.

Then why did we invade Haiti?
Or Germany?
Or Italy?
Or Grenada?
Or Panama?

Is self defense an "extreme emergency"?

0 Replies

So you style yourself as the conscience of this website, but only jump in and make your snide remarks when it isn't one of your "friends".

What about the guy who neither knew about Darfur's oil nor how to even spell it? Why not jump on his ass for his "flippant" remarks? Think he even knows where "Dafur" is?

You whine about the US not doing enough and seem to think that Bush only "hopped right on it" because George Clooney called it to his attention. You do know this has been going on for years there and the left is just now waking up to it, right? Where was George Clooney all that time?

And I don't buy your "this is different" ****. You can peddle that BS all you want, but it would only be a matter of time before the ignorant left on this site started whining "quagmire" and "we're there for the OIL" crap.

You can hide behind your computer and spew out your selective insults all you want. You think I'm a racist? You're nothing but another little leftist hypocrite who's pissed because you can't tell us what to do and when to do it.

0 Replies

Mysteryman- It is clear that nimh is ignoring the fact that the Representatives of the People of the United States( who they may remove from office if they do not feel that they are properly representing them) voted to give President Bush full authority to attack Iraq unilaterally on Oct 10th and 11th 2001. The vote in the House was 296 to 133 and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the full go ahead to use the military "as he determines necessary and appropriate" to defend against the threat of Iraq.

Your question is well put, Mysteryman. I doubt you will be answered fully!

0 Replies

Nimh mentioned Kosovo. Perhaps Nimh does not know that according to HR 1569 adopted by the Congress of the United States on April 28th 1999, there were no funds to be utilized for the deployment of ground forces of the US anywhere in Yugoslavia.

This, of course, should be contrasted with the Congressional Approval for President Bush attacking Iraq which I previously posted.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
So war is strictly a last resort. Only in the most extreme of emergencies can war, IMO, be justified. [..] when it comes to invading a country, only one excuse could possibly count: to stop an ongoing genocide. To save people from a genocide thats happening right now. That's what we thought we were doing in Kosovo.

Then why did we invade Haiti?
Or Germany?
Or Italy?

Ehmm, Germany and Italy in WW2 you mean? I'd suppose that the Holocaust, being a genocide and all, would qualify those by my criteria, wouldnt you say so?

mysteryman wrote:

Or Grenada?
Or Panama?

Didnt agree with either invasion.

mysteryman wrote:

Is self defense an "extreme emergency"?

The bit in that paragraph that I snipped out in my repost to Bernard, but that is in there where I posted it the first time round, was: "I would not deny countries the right to defend themselves when invaded, or call in allies' help when they are (eg Kuwait)."

(Do I need to keep repeating my posts for whomever ddnt bother to read them the first time round?).

0 Replies

I am afraid that you misinterpreted Mr Mysteryman's comment on "Self defense". I am certain that Mysterman referred to our own self-defense.

You are aware, I am sure, sir, that we lost 3,000 people in the destruction of the WTC by Islamo-fascists?

0 Replies

I am happy that you conclude that Kosovo was an extreme circumstance, nimh. I am sure that you also class President Clinton's bombing of Iraq( completely unauthorized by the the Congress of the United States.)

I am also delighted that your expertise in these areas trumps the US Congress, which I dare say, has much more information, not to mention the legal authority, to go to war.

Of course, you neglect to mention that on October 10 and 11 of 2001, the Congress of the United States overwhelmingly voted to grant the president full authority to attack Iraq unilaterally.

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

So you style yourself as the conscience of this website

I do no such thing.

SierraSong wrote:

What about the guy who neither knew about Darfur's oil nor how to even spell it? Why not jump on his ass for his "flippant" remarks? Think he even knows where "Dafur" is?

Dont think I noticed that one.

SierraSong wrote:

You whine about the US not doing enough and seem to think that Bush only "hopped right on it" because George Clooney called it to his attention.

Huh?? Whereever did I say any such thing? I didnt even know George Clooney had ever said anything about Darfur until you started going on about him!!

SierraSong wrote:

You do know this has been going on for years there and the left is just now waking up to it, right?

Bullshit. Yes, I know its been going on for years, and yes people on the left have been trying to get attention for it for the same years. Such "leftie" organisations like Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, leftwingers in the European Parliament, etc etc

To their credit, as I already noted earlier, parts of the Christian right in the US have been equally involved. Otherwise, apathy has reigned.

SierraSong wrote:

Where was George Clooney all that time?

Who the f*ck gives a toss about George Clooney? What is your thing with George Clooney?

SierraSong wrote:

And I don't buy your "this is different" ****. You can peddle that BS all you want, but it would only be a matter of time before the ignorant left on this site started whining "quagmire" and "we're there for the OIL" crap.

I'm sure there'd be isolationists and pacifists on the left who'd protest, just like they did about the war on Yugoslavia. They can go join Buchanan and his ilk, then. But just like with the war on Yugoslavia, there'd also be many on the left who'd support action. I'd be among them. (I actually joined the party I'm currently a member of, the Green Left, because they did support the military intervention over Kosovo).

SierraSong wrote:

You're nothing but another little leftist hypocrite who's pissed because you can't tell us what to do and when to do it.

And you, Sir, seem to be as unable or unwilling to ever address a single argument I make or fact I bring up (what was that about a UN army?), as you are prone to ascribe remarks to me that I never made in my life (Bush hopping on the Clooney wagon?) and attack me over those, instead.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

I am afraid that you misinterpreted Mr Mysteryman's comment on "Self defense". I am certain that Mysterman referred to our own self-defense.

I was quite aware of that. As soon as a foreign army crosses your borders, you have my full sympathy in waging war against it.

BernardR wrote:

You are aware, I am sure, sir, that we lost 3,000 people in the destruction of the WTC by Islamo-fascists?

I am, and I know who did it, too: Al-Qaeda terrorists. Hence also agreeing with the military attack on Afghanistan, where Al-Qaeda actually had bases and training camps and where Osama himself was. But then your president decided that he had better things to do than chase the murderer of those 3,000, and went after Saddam instead. Take it up with him.

0 Replies

Oh, its you by the way! I hadnt recognized you. New username again? Thats the, what, sixth now?

0 Replies

Bookmark

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

And you, Sir, seem to be as unable or unwilling to ever address a single argument I make or fact I bring up (what was that about a UN army?), as you are prone to ascribe remarks to me that I never made in my life (Bush hopping on the Clooney wagon?) and attack me over those, instead.

And you, miss, need to go back and read this thread from the beginning to see who's attacking whom here.

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

nimh wrote:
And you, Sir, seem to be as unable or unwilling to ever address a single argument I make or fact I bring up (what was that about a UN army?), as you are prone to ascribe remarks to me that I never made in my life (Bush hopping on the Clooney wagon?) and attack me over those, instead.

And you, miss, need to go back and read this thread from the beginning to see who's attacking whom here.

But this all pales in comparison to the attack on our freedoms that President Bush has thwarted, by staying the course and carrying out his strategy for victory in Iraq!

0 Replies

As soon as a foreign army crosses your borders? Are you still in the age of Ghengis Khan? Did you ever hear of Air Power?

I am quite sure that the people who lost relatives and friends in the WTC do not agree with your definition.

Did you ever read the speech of our illustrious president, William Jefferson Clinton, defending his decision to unilaterally attack Iraq with missles on December 16, 1998?

Clinton said:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq...Their missionis to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and ITS MILITARY CAPACITY TO THREATEN ITS NEIGHBORS.

THEIR PURPOSE IS TO PROTECT THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES AND INDEED THE INTERESTS OF PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND AROUND THE WORLD.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

0 Replies

5 Congress Members Arrested at Sudan Protest

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know