President George W. Bush

[ratfink]

Re: re

the us is allowed to have landmines that was never an issue with the un it was pres clinton that brought it up its the the international treaty banning antipersonnel mines which the us never signed we simply said we would not use them.

Actualy, the resolution banning landmines launched in 1997 Called the Ottawa Treaty was voted on and pased by all but 10 countries since then 137 states have signed the treaty.

A security council resolution is required to make it called a breach of UN charter, that will not happen since US holds a veto.

From the horse's mouth:
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol13no1/landmine.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/landmine980702.html

Actualy they don't even say that, they say that they will only use them in certain places which is utterly rediculous.

I never said that they were MoMD only that they ignored the will of the UN.

 

[Lexi]

re

On December 2-3 more than 100 nations will come to Ottawa to sign the treaty banning antipersonnel land mines (APLs). There are more than 100 million APLs scattered over the earth, which disable and kill indiscriminately and threaten civilian populations and their social and economic development. These weapons lie in wait after the guns of war are silent, ready to maim a child at play or a woman gathering firewood in the forest. Every day 22 more victims, mostly civilians, are added to the baneful toll.

The United States will not be among the signers.

read that last sentence!

But while President Clinton in 1994 called for elimination of land mines

When U.S. delegates finally joined the Oslo conference, where diplomats from 89 nations were preparing the text for Ottawa, the U.S. asked for an exception for its forces in Korea. Since exceptions could only invite other nations to invent their own, the conference refused to make this change.

Whereupon the U.S. diplomats withdrew and the White House declared that Clinton was "rock-solid" against signing the Ottawa treaty.

again read the last sentence!

it appears my horses mouth says different!!!
http://www.irwinabrams.com/articles/icbl.html

and that is what they say they stated that they would not use them with the exception of korea!!! and clinton did start the whole thing in 1994! it was only declared the ottawa treaty in 97 because thats where they gathered to sign it!!!

 

[haleyviperx]

IxildorRS Wrote: "....Congress he owns the fucking congress he do whatever he want's and he is a fucking puppet of his father!"

We call this a system of checks and balances around here. All branches of government whether it be executive, judicual, or legislative have a say in the final decision. Bush cant just click a little button and have it over with. The government might not be a 'well oiled machine', but it does it's job to the extent needed. (for the most part). And Lexi, I agree with you ALMOST 100%. There were a few key points i didn't necessarialy agree with, but hey, Exercise that first ammendment. But I think everybody makes a good point in each post here. it might not be the best solution, but it can help us as individuals to come to make our own view on the subject.

 

[ratfink]

Re: re

and that is what they say they stated that they would not use them with the exception of korea!!! and clinton did start the whole thing in 1994! it was only declared the ottawa treaty in 97 because thats where they gathered to sign it!!!

You have just verified what I claimed. For the record, anti landmine speeches in the UN had been going on as early as the 70s from various countries.

My point was that US just like any other country will ignore UN supported treaties if it doesn't suit their needs. In bringing up Korea you have proven it for me. Thank you. Using your own text:

When U.S. delegates finally joined the Oslo conference, where diplomats from 89 nations were preparing the text for Ottawa, the U.S. asked for an exception for its forces in Korea. Since exceptions could only invite other nations to invent their own, the conference refused to make this change.

It should also be noted that there is no difference between the way the WoMD treaty was supported by the UN and how the land mine was by the UN.

 

[Lexi]

re

it doesn't matter how much of your side i support because we are basicly saying the samething!!!

the only difference is you are basicly saying were breaking un rules by have landmines but were not we are aloud to have landmines just because the speech was in front of the un it doesn't mean that it is un sanction. and just because the un supports the treaty that doesn't mean that it is un sanction. therefore if it isn't un sanction then then were not breaking any rules of the un!!!!

 

Lexi you could go and play with something else if you have :twisted:
Why half of american papulation doesn't want war?
no one answers to that ofcourse...........
congress>>>>>>.lol what fucking congress he owns the fucking congress he do whatever he want's and he is a fucking puppet of his father!
In all the world hundred thousand of people scream for no war but what they know xa??? they are all stupid xa? Well if they are then i'm to as stupid as it get's!
So kiss my *** ,and after you do that you can go to war if you want! :twisted:
Lol when you will start bombing korea after irak what are you gonna say then???
The usual korea was bla bla bla terrorists bla bla bla ok ok we said to much let's bomb them!
:twisted:

north korea is communist and supported by communist CHINA

China should not even be in the UN this is totaly retarded because they are not a democracy they are a communist government. its really a shame that a communist government gets to be in the united nations because a communist government does not represent its people.

and to add to that France is full of a bunch of pussys that are socialist.

I dont know how much longer i can put up with all this bull shit talkin that you socalist, communist or whatever the hell you call yourselves are doing.

post valid proof and i think that this discussion will finaly be resolved.

 

Re: re

IxildorRS half of congress doesn't like him and he does not own them if you ever checked out the the us government you would know that they are there own system! but alot time ago when this country decided to set up a government we decided that who the people choose was who was gonna run the country for 4 years unless impeached!
and last time i checked g dubs was who the country choose so in other words thats the current leader of the country! and even if he is a his fathers pupet his father was a great leader! if you remember desert storm!!
and yeah alot of people are protesting the war but what is that gonna do!!! we are going to war whether some hippie in france wants us to or not!!
and if we start bombing korea then so be it there as much of a threat as iraq!! no were not gonna claim there terroists but they opeanly say that they have weapons of mass destruction and last time i checked there not suposed to!!
but our focus is not on korea because we think that we can talk through that because they are not as determinded as sadam!!

and there you go again with your childish input "Kiss my ***"!!! if you have a problem with your vocabulary then i think you need to pay attention in school because there are alot more word combos out there then "shut the **** up" and "kiss my ***"!!!
but if thats all you can say then your not worth my time so run along now and play!!

Well it seem's i worth your time allthough i have no need for you to respond!
So what you do is give label's to people who don't want war(hippies in france)
well i'll inform you once again that in your country american citizens more than 50% protest against war not only in france :twisted:
THE LAST TIME I WAS INFORMED AMERICA ALSO HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION :twisted:
Now take my last polite reply and put it in your *** :twisted:
Warfriend :twisted:

last time i was informed america doesnt have a crazy leader that kills his citizens and shoots the weapons of mass distruction at the Isralies. also FRANCE IS FULL OF PUSSYS. also GERMANY HAS LOST ITS HONOR AND PRIDE. also CHINA IS COMMUNIST AND SHOULD NOT BE IN THE UN. also HIPPIES WHERE IN THE 70-80s TODAY THEY ARE PUSSYS THAT ARE UNINFORMED.

 

[ratfink]

Re: re

the only difference is you are basicly saying were breaking un rules by have landmines but were not we are aloud to have landmines just because the speech was in front of the un it doesn't mean that it is un sanction. and just because the un supports the treaty that doesn't mean that it is un sanction. therefore if it isn't un sanction then then were not breaking any rules of the un!!!!

That really depends how you look at it. Who allows people to have weapons? If it is the UN, it is very clear thier view on the issue that NO ONE should have land mines.

I would also point out that Iraq hasn't signed the WoMD treaty so really that in itself can only be held up at the same lenght as the landmine issue. The WoMD treaty and the Anti-Landmine treaty are the same beast and have about equil support, only real difference here is that the US has the power to veto anything that would see action taken to the countries that still lay landmines.

 

[ratfink]

Re: re

[quote="Jimbo]last time i was informed america doesnt have a crazy leader that kills his citizens and shoots the weapons of mass distruction at the Isralies. also FRANCE IS FULL OF PUSSYS. also GERMANY HAS LOST ITS HONOR AND PRIDE. also CHINA IS COMMUNIST AND SHOULD NOT BE IN THE UN. also HIPPIES WHERE IN THE 70-80s TODAY THEY ARE PUSSYS THAT ARE UNINFORMED.[/quote]

Um Jimbo what the hell is the point of the UN if you are going to exclude people. That statment is about as ignorant as what Ixildor has been spouting. Speaking of uninformed you might want to back up a few pages and check out my post of security council members who do not support the war at this time.

 

[ratfink]

China should not even be in the UN this is totaly retarded because they are not a democracy they are a communist government. its really a shame that a communist government gets to be in the united nations because a communist government does not represent its people..

You see democracy anywhere in here?

"Membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations of the Charter and, in the judgement of the Organization, are willing and able to carry out these obligations.

The admission of any such State to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."
Article 4, Chapter 2, United Nations Charter

and to add to that France is full of a bunch of pussys that are socialist.

I dont know how much longer i can put up with all this bull **** talkin that you socalist, communist or whatever the hell you call yourselves are doing.

post valid proof and i think that this discussion will finaly be resolved.

Loose the Ad Holem attacks, just makes you look like you cannot debate properly. While you are at is I suggest you loose the strawman aguments aswell.

 

[Dalius]

on a lighter note....

ITS D-D-D-D-DUBYA!

 

China should not even be in the UN this is totaly retarded because they are not a democracy they are a communist government. its really a shame that a communist government gets to be in the united nations because a communist government does not represent its people..

You see democracy anywhere in here?

"Membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations of the Charter and, in the judgement of the Organization, are willing and able to carry out these obligations.

The admission of any such State to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."
Article 4, Chapter 2, United Nations Charter

and to add to that France is full of a bunch of pussys that are socialist.

I dont know how much longer i can put up with all this bull **** talkin that you socalist, communist or whatever the hell you call yourselves are doing.

post valid proof and i think that this discussion will finaly be resolved.

Loose the Ad Holem attacks, just makes you look like you cannot debate properly. While you are at is I suggest you loose the strawman aguments aswell.

ok here is the botom line the UN is supost to provide order and justice so how can it do this if dictators(tyrants) are allowed in. Dictators rule a country by FORCE the very thing that suposidly the majority opposes.

The recent reports from the weapon inspectors tell us that they have not been TOTALY ACTIVLY COMPLIANT to the UN security councils resolution 1441 which states that Iraq has to cooperate activly fully to disarm. Also the reports tell us that they have caught them in lies which is very counter compliant to resolution 1441. To finalize this Iraq has only destroyed some ~30 missles of which they reportedly have over 100 of. Disarming does not take months let alone the PAST 12 YEARS!!!

botom line is that Iraq has not met the constraints of resolution 1441 and therefore it requires severe consequences which where intended to be FORCE which we must use because that is the only sever consequence.

Once we go to war and have the chem and bio weapons fired upon our troops you will realize that you where all wrong. if it is not used I am sure that we will find it after the war is over.

most of the first day or two will just be us firing hundreds to thousands of missles at strategic targets.

O and you forgot to check the charter it states

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

thats just a small part but it is very important to my point that a communist government rules by force and has no accountability to its people and therefore does not have FREEDOM. same thing goes for a dictator like sadam who kills his political oponents and kills his own citizens.

 

[Lexi]

re

clap, clap, clap!

get'em jimbo!!

 

[ratfink]

ok here is the botom line the UN is supost to provide order and justice so how can it do this if dictators(tyrants) are allowed in. Dictators rule a country by FORCE the very thing that suposidly the majority opposes.

Wrong, that is not what the UN is for. The UN is there to provide a forum for ALL nations in a democratic and peaceful way. Thought that comes peace. This includes dictators. The UN isn't supposed to have a sence of Morality the moraility comes from the concensus of the votes.

The recent reports from the weapon inspectors tell us that they have not been TOTALY ACTIVLY COMPLIANT to the UN security councils resolution 1441 which states that Iraq has to cooperate activly fully to disarm. Also the reports tell us that they have caught them in lies which is very counter compliant to resolution 1441. To finalize this Iraq has only destroyed some ~30 missles of which they reportedly have over 100 of. Disarming does not take months let alone the PAST 12 YEARS!!!

The most recent report from Inspecters said that they were habing no problem getting into facilites they asked to see in a quick and proper manner.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2763653.stm (you cannot trust the CNN version as they edited nearly 750 words out of it)

Cannot find the full text of Feb 28th but here is excepts:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/879224.asp

The disarmment of missles started litteraly last week, they are some of the most dangerous things to dispose of since the fuel is highly corrosive and toxic. It should take that long to dispose of them in a safe manner.

botom line is that Iraq has not met the constraints of resolution 1441 and therefore it requires severe consequences which where intended to be FORCE which we must use because that is the only sever consequence.

Mr Blix seems to disagree with you on that regard. Pesonaly I take his word over yours. Bottom line. Progress is being made on the issue. It may be slow progress but there is not a hell of a lot Saddam can do under the conditions he is unde, so time is something that we do have a lot of.

Once we go to war and have the chem and bio weapons fired upon our troops you will realize that you where all wrong. if it is not used I am sure that we will find it after the war is over.

Prediciting the future is something neither of us can do so this is largely bullshit. Chemical or biological agents were not used on soldiers during desert storm when the Iraqi army was in a heck of a lot better shape then it is now.

most of the first day or two will just be us firing hundreds to thousands of missles at strategic targets.

The US millitary will have more problems with gohillia style in-city fighting then it will with chemical weapons.

thats just a small part but it is very important to my point that a communist government rules by force and has no accountability to its people and therefore does not have FREEDOM. same thing goes for a dictator like sadam who kills his political oponents and kills his own citizens.

Wrong again, those are not conditions for membership, those are the goals of the organisation. Does is fufill those goals? On the most part, yes because it does put some accountability where they would no normaly have it, accountability to the world. Freedom does not come through isolating people.

Furtermore the UN would loose it's value as what it is by excluding countries. It's decisions wouldn't hold as much merit on the international community.

For the record here are the ONLY requirements for membership to the UN, from chaper 2, Article 4 of the UN Charter:

1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter2.htm

 

the progress that has been made has only been in the light of the show of force which shows that we are getting impatient.

I DO NOT AND WILL NEVER WATCH CNN IT IS THE COMMUNIST NEWS NETWORK.

thanks for all the info on the matter.

 

[ratfink]

the progress that has been made has only been in the light of the show of force which shows that we are getting impatient.

Yup progress is being made because there is force waiting to back up everything said. That is the way it is supposed to be. As long as progress is being made (hoever slow) then it is sucessful. The UN weapons inspectors think progress is being made. Once they stop thinking that progress is being made or they are loosing ground is the time when war is necisery. There is not some magical clock sitting up in the air that on March whatever strikes without Saddam gone we loose the game.

If you are loosing patience that is fine war is not here to entertain you Jimbo.

 

the progress that has been made has only been in the light of the show of force which shows that we are getting impatient.

Yup progress is being made because there is force waiting to back up everything said. That is the way it is supposed to be. As long as progress is being made (hoever slow) then it is sucessful. The UN weapons inspectors think progress is being made. Once they stop thinking that progress is being made or they are loosing ground is the time when war is necisery. There is not some magical clock sitting up in the air that on March whatever strikes without Saddam gone we loose the game.

If you are loosing patience that is fine war is not here to entertain you Jimbo.

not always true he could be building faster than he destroys.

i know war is not enetertaining for me i just think it is over due and nesecary.

 

[ratfink]

not always true he could be building faster than he destroys.

i know war is not enetertaining for me i just think it is over due and nesecary.

Jimbo if they are doing that do you seriously think the UN weapons inspectors would be saying they are making progress? They have more qualification and expertese on the issue then either you, me, George Bush or anyone in his cabinate. They are THERE and they really have no reason to kiss the ass of Saddam.

I personaly think you are being shortsighted. This war is not going to be a desert storm. US troops are going to be going into cities and a lot of people are going to die, and I will tell you something it won't just be iraqis. All the technology in the world cannot help you when people can hide in an infinate number of places. Thought we learned that in Vietnam.

 

not always true he could be building faster than he destroys.

i know war is not enetertaining for me i just think it is over due and nesecary.

Jimbo if they are doing that do you seriously think the UN weapons inspectors would be saying they are making progress? They have more qualification and expertese on the issue then either you, me, George Bush or anyone in his cabinate. They are THERE and they really have no reason to kiss the *** of Saddam.

I personaly think you are being shortsighted. This war is not going to be a desert storm. US troops are going to be going into cities and a lot of people are going to die, and I will tell you something it won't just be iraqis. All the technology in the world cannot help you when people can hide in an infinate number of places. Thought we learned that in Vietnam.

You think they are all knowing in what goes on all over the country?


o there is a good soultion to it I know it is bad and not reasonable but i have to say it so here it goes.

tell everyone in the city to come out with their hands up and when they do you just arrest the ones that are known to be bad.

 

[DragoZack]

Oyo, I've seen that Americans said that Frenches haven't done anything, and others critiks
Hehe, I'm not proud of being french... gierk