Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Damn that's a big protest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Damn that's a big protest. [message #111800] |
Sun, 29 August 2004 19:42   |
cokemaster
Messages: 144
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Quote: |
We did not violated the territorial integrity.
| Quote: |
sovereignty-
Complete independence and self-government.
A territory existing as an independent state.
|
As of now they are completely independent and they have always been a territory existing as an independent state.
So that pretty much gets thrown out the window.
|
Bullshit. You obviously don't know what the word sovereignty means.
| Quote: |
sov·er·eign·ty n
1. supreme authority, especially over a state
2. freedom from outside interference and the right to self-government
3. a politically independent state
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
|
Oops, and look! http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sovereignty&r=67 also lies!!!
| Quote: |
sov·er·eign·ty Audio pronunciation of "sovereignty" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (svr-n-t, svrn-)
n. pl. sov·er·eign·ties
1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.
[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Main Entry: sov·er·eign·ty
Variant: also sov·ran·ty /'sä-vr&n-tE, 's&-, -v&-r&n-/
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ties
1 a : supreme power esp. over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY
2 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state
|
Remember, Friends don't let friends play Reborn!
|
|
|
|
| Damn that's a big protest. [message #111801] |
Sun, 29 August 2004 19:50 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
I never said it isn't illegal if you get caught.
|
I didn't say you DID. You've implied it every time you talk about the lack of illegality dispite the overwhelming evidence stating otherwise.
| Quote: |
If we were speeding and ever cop in the world knew about and they did nothing then there isn't a problem.
|
You were STILL speeding. That is a violation of the law. Just because you don't suffer the consequences doesn't mean you didn't violate the law that says "you may not speed". Stop arguing in a circle.
| Quote: |
When the entire UN knows we are doing something and they don't do anything there is no problem.
|
See above. Try, PLEASE try and connect the dots. I know it's not your forte.
| Quote: |
And yes you are interpreting the law.
|
Oh the irony.
| Quote: |
The only part you can eve refute in any resolution is
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring States,
"
We did not violated the territorial integrity.
| Quote: |
sovereignty-
Complete independence and self-government.
A territory existing as an independent state.
|
|
First of all, I don't need to refute that statement. In fact, you've tried to refute it every time you post that this war was legal according to international law. You've failed, by the way.
Oh yeah, your definition supports my claim that you violated the sovereignty of Iraq. No sane person would disagree.
| Quote: |
As of now they are completely independent and they have always been a territory existing as an independent state.
|
No one cares about that when we're talking about inherent illegality. This problem goes back to March 19th, 2003. You know, when you launched the campaign to get those WMDs didn't appear in stockpiles and were refuted by the Intelligence Reports? Also, the same time when Saddam was legally, and officially recognized as the sovereign head of Iraq. Before, of course, you blew up part of the nation, took him out of power illegally, and instituted a representitive government of your choosing.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Damn that's a big protest. [message #111808] |
Sun, 29 August 2004 20:08 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Javaxcx |
All of those Member States signed the Charter. They didn't have to, but they did anyway. If you'll notice, Iraq is, and was a Member State. So they're under those same laws as well. If you have any questions about the Charter and the laws in it that everyone said "OMG OK!!!111" to, then take a read: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
|
That still doesn't change the fact that the UN strips every one of its member states of their sovereignty. When a state joins the UN, it is basically agreeing to give up its sovereignty and answer to the almighty United Nations. It is no longer a sovereign nation if it has to adhere to some "international law" that rules over that nation. No member state of the UN is sovereign, so the United States did not violate Iraq's sovereignty when it ousted Saddam's regime.
The US did nothing illegal since the "international law" was meaningless to begin with.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
[Updated on: Sun, 29 August 2004 20:09] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Damn that's a big protest. [message #111812] |
Sun, 29 August 2004 20:23 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
That still doesn't change the fact that the UN strips every one of its member states of their sovereignty. When a state joins the UN, it is basically agreeing to give up its sovereignty and answer to the almighty United Nations. It is no longer a sovereign nation if it has to adhere to some "international law" that rules over that nation. No member state of the UN is sovereign, so the United States did not violate Iraq's sovereignty when it ousted Saddam's regime.
The US did nothing illegal since the "international law" was meaningless to begin with.
|
The United Nations doesn't strip the Member States of their sovereignty, and here's why:
| Quote: |
sov·er·eign·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (svr-n-t, svrn-)
n. pl. sov·er·eign·ties
Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
Royal rank, authority, or power.
Complete independence and self-government.
A territory existing as an independent state.
|
Nothing in the Charter explicitly removes the sovereignty from any Member State. Each State is still legally (under that law) completely sovereign in that it still has supreme authority over itself and is legally independant. I mean, there is no "United Nations" country. However, upon agreeing to that Charter, it does mean that:
Chapter I of the Charter
"7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll."
Additionally, upon agreeing to that Charter, Member States do forfiet some international "authority" as nicely displayed by the rest of Article 2.
Are your international "liberties" legally limited by the Charter? Yup, definately. If you don't like it, leave. Your national soveriegnty is untouched unless passed in a Resolution under Chapter VII of that Charter.
Here is something I want to expand on:
"When a state joins the UN, it is basically agreeing to give up its sovereignty and answer to the almighty United Nations."
It doesn't give up it's sovereignty, but it does give the United Nations the authority to mediate, and if necessary, prosecute (under C.VII) illegal international actions.
Edit: There is a bit of fallacy in that post, so let me correct it before you reply:
I'll assume you'll point out that "international policy" is a sovereign decision. And it is. However, while that policy does exist legally within each nation, the actions taken as per said policy must not violate the United Nations charter. This means, that if you violate this policy, (like the US and CoW did), you violate it (as far as I've researched) through the United Nations but not of your own sovereign international policy. This means that they cannot be legally charged in their own country, but the U.N. does have the legitimate authority to mediate, or prosecute, based on that illegality.
So while this doesn't eliminate the sovereignty of a nation, it does authorize the United Nations to legally act against a nation who does violate the Charter (and/or resolutions).
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Damn that's a big protest. [message #111844] |
Mon, 30 August 2004 01:43 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
|
Even if the UN would have a certain say over what a member state can and cannot do, all member states voluntarily agreed to join, and all member states can step out any moment they want, I'm pretty sure. Therefore they have the power to take all matters back into their own hands any moment they want and are therefore souvereign.
|
|
|
|
| Damn that's a big protest. [message #111868] |
Mon, 30 August 2004 05:13 |
 |
ViperFUD
Messages: 69
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Wh3333333 for off topic.
Umm ... yay for protesters excersizing their constitutional right to free speech. Let's all hope there's no violence.
Now, on to why nodbugger is buggered:
| Nodbugger |
No one broke any international laws. Well Saddam broke 14 security resolutions and countless laws, but you don't care about going after the real criminals.
...
We have never broken a UN Resolution
|
Now, despite the fact that java has posted MULTIPLE TIMES the resolution that the United States broke, and that everyone else (crimservative included) agrees that we did, you still refuse to acknowledge it because ... why? Are you just to stupid to think?
| Nodbugger |
As I said, go live in Iran, Libya, pre-war Iraq, North Korea, China, or Cuba then come back and tell me who the criminals are.
|
Now, after he posts this challenge, and is answered according to it, what does he say?
| Nodbugger |
Well she is an Iranian, what do you expect her to say? She is brainwashed and she obviously brainwashed you.
As a western citizen you must be a fucking idiot to compare Bush to the leaders of Iran and then say Bush is a war criminal. you have been brainwashed and hopefully you will get caught in Iran when we bomb it.
|
The fuck?
He says "go see how it is." Once they see how it is, and still don't agree with him, he says "She is brainwashed."
Can this guy even be taken seriously? What happens when another person answers his challenge?
| Nodbugger |
Or are you going to the nice China: Tourists edition? China is just like Jamaica. You have fun in the sun Jamaica and stabbing Jamaica.
|
Interpretation: even though you were there, you still didn't see the truth cause you disagree with me.
At this point, I'm forced to conclude that you lose.
You offer a challenge, it is met, and you are beaten. Rather than accepting your defeat with honor, you instead scream "NO ITS NOT RITE CUZ I NO HOW IT IS EVEN THO I NEVER BEN THEER!!"
| Nodbugger |
For a protest like that a permit is required. And there were no permits given out for the event. Not to mention the millions of dollars in taxes wasted and the police/fire/ambulance personnel diverted to the area. You can also put in there they pissed off a lot of New Yorkers. Taking all those resources away from a city like New York is a terrorist attack in itself.
|
Interesting ... I've never heard that you need a permit to excersize your first ammendment rights ... but I digress.
I was watching the news. Fox News, as a matter of fact, and the they were interviewing people in New York. Most or the New Yorkers were not pissed at the protesters. They were pissed off at the Republicans. "Why are they having their convention here? We're primarily Democrat! We don't want them here."
So does that mean that the Republicans are terrorist attack in themselves?
| Nodbugger |
You can interpret it how ever you want, but at the end of the day when the people in charge of enforcing the laws don't say anything, it is OK.
And don't give me that crap about if they don't say anything that doesn't mean it is legal. OF COURSE IT MEANS IT IS LEGAL! I cop doesn't pull you over to tell you that you are abiding the law. They only tell you when you are breaking it.
|
| Nodbugger |
I never said it isn't illegal if you get caught.
If we were speeding and ever cop in the world knew about and they did nothing then there isn't a problem.
|
See, you said it was legal if you don't get caught; or rather, that it isn't illegal if no charges are pressed.
Let me give you a hypothetical situation:
If Seal breaks into your house and puts a bullet in your brain, and I know he did it, but I don't press charges against him, does that mean it was legal for him to do that? Think really hard before you answer this, cause it is directly relevant to both your argument and your continued existance.
| Nodbugger |
As of now they are completely independent and they have always been a territory existing as an independent state.
|
So when Bush himself said, "We are returning Iraq's sovereignty," what he meant was, "Even though they've always been sovereign and we're not returning anything cause you can only return something you've taken and we obviously didn't do that. Obviously." Is that what you meant?
Cause it looks to me like you're the biggest idiot to ever live.
And shepherds we shall be,
For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from thy hand;
That our feet may swiftly carry out thy command.
And we shall flow a river forth to thee,
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Damn that's a big protest. [message #111921] |
Mon, 30 August 2004 09:37 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
My group is peacefully protesting the protesters. As far as I'm concerned, their right to free speech shouldn't allow them to march on the streets and fuck up traffic.
When the third presidential debate is held here in Phoenix, AZ, there is a designated "free speech area" at a nearby park that has been reserved for protesting, instead of blocking city streets.
The fact that counter-protesters are in danger of being physically attacked just shows how psychopathic some libs can be. I've seen them on video... 25% of them are only protesting to get laid by some hot protester chick, 25% of them don't know what they're protesting, 49% can't back up their protests and answer questions with "FUCK YOU" and the like, and the other 1% will answer you with off-the wall answers about conspiracies with aliens from Mars.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Damn that's a big protest. [message #111924] |
Mon, 30 August 2004 10:06 |
|
|
What the fuck?
My opinion on counter-protesting: When you do this, you're obviously seaking for trouble. Blame the freaking police, they are the ones who are blocking the roads, oh and not to mention that New-York is "Liberal town".
The way you re-act over protestants blocking the streets is like when the Russians protested their king.
Oh, and by the way: you can pay someone to make him say whatever you want.
You can counter-protest if you want, but don't do it in their face, do it somewhere else where you'll be sure that some of the trouble-makers won't be attacking you.
I suck cock and love it... absolutely love it. And I just got banned for being too immature to be allowed to post here.
|
|
|
|
| Damn that's a big protest. [message #111932] |
Mon, 30 August 2004 11:05 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
| Javaxcx |
All of those Member States signed the Charter. They didn't have to, but they did anyway. If you'll notice, Iraq is, and was a Member State. So they're under those same laws as well. If you have any questions about the Charter and the laws in it that everyone said "OMG OK!!!111" to, then take a read: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
|
That still doesn't change the fact that the UN strips every one of its member states of their sovereignty. When a state joins the UN, it is basically agreeing to give up its sovereignty and answer to the almighty United Nations. It is no longer a sovereign nation if it has to adhere to some "international law" that rules over that nation. No member state of the UN is sovereign, so the United States did not violate Iraq's sovereignty when it ousted Saddam's regime.
The US did nothing illegal since the "international law" was meaningless to begin with.
|
Meaningless or not, the law is the law. Therefor you have 3 choices. Put up with it, change it, or leave. America did not leave the UN, one choice gone. America did not change the law, second choice gone. Therefor America accepted the law as it is, and must abide by it. Regardless of how meaningless or rediculous it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Damn that's a big protest. [message #111988] |
Mon, 30 August 2004 14:23 |
|
|
| Quote: |
[23:19] <n00bstories_bot> What time is it? Time for Nodbugger to SHUT THE FUCK UP!
|
I suck cock and love it... absolutely love it. And I just got banned for being too immature to be allowed to post here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Apr 28 06:02:08 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01157 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
