|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted August 26, 2009 05:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Don't ever breathe the word facts with me. Facts are sacred. To you and your ilk that watch FOX News? They're punchlines.
Perhaps you could stop insulting me.
Quote:
What I wrote, and clearly you didn't understand, was that a legal justification for war has to come from the United Nations Security Council. They didn't grant it.
I'm sorry, bu the UN does not rule the world. The US retains its soverignty and does not need to ask the UN for permission to go to war.
Quote:
Our leaders were over in England looking for a legal justification for the war you <unkind noun deleted>.
That appears to be another violation of the Code of Conduct.
Quote:
So, self-defense? Iraq was no threat to us, directly or indirectly
Go back and read throough my posts and you will see the link that gives evidence for Saddam sponsoring terrorism and paying money to families of suicide bombers.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 07:35 AM |
|
|
Let us MODS do our job please. Enough back seat moderating? If you have an issue with a post Contact US, do not respond to the post as in doing so somebody might breach the CoC themselves. Thank you.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 07:41 AM |
|
|
|
I was just objecting to insults against me and stating my objections publicly since I was insulted publicly. I thought I was allowed to do so as long as I did not respond to insults with insults. I will avoid saying someone has violated the COC if that is what you are refering to.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 08:02 AM |
|
|
One issue is Elodin, and please don't take this as an insult, that you find an insult where there is none. There is a difference between opinion and an insult. IF they mention you by name, and THEN say something fine. If they are commenting on what they think about a religion it is not an insult to you. That is one thing.
I've contacted a couple of people and dinged a couple. I have no problem with you pointing out something, but you should do so FIRST in an HCM to one of the Moderators of a forum. Let us handle it. That way it does not escalate. We've been over this before, and I am not going over it again. Instead I will just post this.
Quote:
Each member is solely responsible for their own conduct - no amount of provocation or aggravation from someone else will justify the action of breaking the rules. Instead of responding to a member who has offended you, alert a moderator about this situation and let them deal with it, keeping you out of trouble
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 08:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm sorry, bu the UN does not rule the world. The US retains its soverignty and does not need to ask the UN for permission to go to war.
Stop this "I'm sorry" nonsense, for our sake.
To the point. If you don't accept the authority of a police force and do everything to undermine it, then you have no law and no order. The US are not better than other nations, they are just one among equals, only a big one. If they - or everyone else - are not willing to hand over a big part of their power to legal authorities THEY are just another brute with big fists bullying others around.
Within a country we don't want corps or cities or counties or families starting to shoot their problems out, and consequently we GO TO COURT or to THE POLICE, when there is a problem. That should be true for the rich people as well.
With countries it is EXACTLY the same thing.
As long as a country accepts only ITS OWN law, as long as that there is no law, no order, no moral and not ethics about war between countries, since there is no mutual understanding.
Of course this is true for others as well:
India and Pakistan; Israel; China; Russia;
To name just a few.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 09:09 AM |
|
|
@Mystical
OK, but the COC also gives an example of a member addressing a false accusation. I guess I could also send a message to a moderator but usually a moderator is involved in the thread and so will see the statements sooner or later and chose to do whatever they will about it.
COC example:
Quote:
For example: instead of saying who they are ("you suck" or "you are an idiot") say what you think about their opinions/actions and why ("Your post about me is wrong because I never said that heroes 4 is a bad game"
And I try to no longer say anything that could be considered provocation even when provoked by another member.
I am quite sure if I made a false accusation against you in a thread you would point out that it was false. If you don't point out it is false it appears that you are admitting that it is true.
Also, I don't consider someone saying something about religion to be a personal insult. All ideologies should be equally able to be criticised.
@JJ
Quote:
Stop this "I'm sorry" nonsense, for our sake.
I'm sorry, but what exactly is nonsense about using the phrase "I'm sorry?" It indicates that I am disagreeing with the person but not wanting to offend them.
Quote:
If they - or everyone else - are not willing to hand over a big part of their power to legal authorities THEY are just another brute with big fists bullying others around.
I'm glad the US does not hand over its power to the leftist dominated UN. The US is not a brute for retaining its soverignty. In fact the US has defended freedom around the world and without the US the world would likely be goose-stepping.
Quote:
As long as a country accepts only ITS OWN law, as long as that there is no law, no order, no moral and not ethics about war between countries, since there is no mutual understanding.
A world government is a pipe dream that will never work. The world has too many different cultures and the different natinos have too many different interests.
The larger a government is the more corrput it becomes. Government is best done on as local a level as possilbe.
And as far as behavior in war, I think the US is "too nice." War should be conducted with overwhelming force to get it over with quickly. That is the most effective and most humane way to deal with it rather than dragging it out.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 09:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm sorry, bu the UN does not rule the world. The US retains its soverignty and does not need to ask the UN for permission to go to war.
Actually I agree with this. The UN has no authority over the US or any other country. NONE! The UN is not a governing body nor a legislative body. They have no authority of any country or any individual.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 09:29 AM |
|
|
It would be nice if it had, though.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 09:36 AM |
|
|
No it wouldn't. The more localized the government the better. The US has a HUGE bureaucracy already. Unless you've lived in a very large country you probably can't imagine just how bad it can be. It begins to completely break down under it's own weight. If the UN were a governing body, i.e. a world government, it would be even worse, MUCH worse. Better to leave it as a place for nations to get together and talk, rather than trying to take legislative authority.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 10:02 AM |
|
|
I'm pretty fed up with all that "can't work" stuff. The big corps have no problem to operate worldwide, and the FBI or Interpol are big and large-scale police organisations as well.
The real reason is that the biggies just don't want to hand over any power they have. They like to be in control FOR THEIR OWN SAKE, their own interests, their own power.
As long as countries basically don't accept that there is an INTERnational court and an INTERnational police force with INTERnational troops THAT HAVE AUTHORITY OVER THEM, as long as that there is no law, no moral, no ethics no nothing, only national interests.
If you want to keep national power, fine. But don't come with moral and ethics in that case. If you attack a country, because you want to and have the power, don't complain if the people in that country hit back, kill your soldiers, bomb the invaders and terrorize the civilians of the attacker nation.
You cannot demand national sovereignity on one hand and cite moral and ethics on the other. If YOUR country is sovereign, then the others are as well. If YOUR country claims the right to wage war for the things they deem worth warring, then the others can as well. If YOU find THIS means of war acceptable, others may find others acceptable. A moral and ethical foundation has to be MUTUAL, in which case a MUTUAL regulation about law, order and law enforcement is found, otherwise there is none.
Edit, specifically for Elodin:
"I'm sorry, BUT", is a provocation, especially if used so often as you do. What exactly are you sorry for, when you use that phrase? Can you tell that?
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 10:13 AM |
|
|
Yes, in war it is (sadly) considered acceptable for both nations to kill each other. That's what war is. Human stupidity.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 10:43 AM |
|
|
Shyranis, it has nothing to do with nations. That is basically true for any number of people. Law, order, law enforcement and law-acceptance isn't something that comes naturally.
Within every "society", no matter how big or small, the members must deliberately and voluntarily SURRENDER part of their sovereignity and freedom, submit to the law and accept laws, official courts and law enforcement agencies as highest order authorities, otherwise there is no law and no order at all.
A society won't work, if people say, ok, I accept courts and police and their doings - but only as long as I like what they are doing. If, for example, you go to court, claiming a guy raped your daughter and the court finds no guilt with the guy you claimed guilty, if you take your gun now and kill the guy, you'll either be arrested and go to jail for murder or there is no law and order in the first place, and the kin of the killed will probably take THEIR guns and kill YOU - and probably your daughter as well, since THEY may take her for a lying [censored].
The same is true for nations in the society of peoples.
Either there is one and the same law for all and everyone that everyone has to abide to, or there is only personal law and with personal and subjective moral and ethics.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 10:58 AM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 12:12, 26 Aug 2009.
|
And that's why I believe that the War in Iraq was mistaken. Because it wasn't one that could be justified outside the US and Britain, and not it can't even be justified to more than 40% of the people in those countries if even that much.
If we can't obey international law, surely other countries would have the right to harbour sick evil twisted individuals from us. (They don't, and we should to set a positive example by following the rules we actually agreed to when we all founded the UN.) If a country can't co-operate, it's going to be harder for it to get what it wants from others.
It's not like the UN is taxing us or setting arbitrary laws that run counter to our culture. It mostly sets etiquette on hostilities and demands thorough investigations on war crimes.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 11:07 AM |
|
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 12:08 PM |
|
|
Couldn't agree more on the international laws issue, JJ.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 01:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No it wouldn't. The more localized the government the better. The US has a HUGE bureaucracy already. Unless you've lived in a very large country you probably can't imagine just how bad it can be. It begins to completely break down under it's own weight. If the UN were a governing body, i.e. a world government, it would be even worse, MUCH worse. Better to leave it as a place for nations to get together and talk, rather than trying to take legislative authority.
JJ nailed it.
I'm pretty sure you're just saying that because you're from US. 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 01:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm sorry, BUT", is a provocation, especially if used so often as you do. What exactly are you sorry for, when you use that phrase? Can you tell that?
I explained to you that when I start off with "I'm sorry but" I mean I must disagree with you, but please don't take offense." Saying "I'm sorry but" is somewhat shorter. Don't take offense when ther is nothing in "I'm sorry but" that could possibly considered an insult or provocation in any way.
Quote:
I'm pretty fed up with all that "can't work" stuff. The big corps have no problem to operate worldwide, and the FBI or Interpol are big and large-scale police organisations as well.
Corporations have the goal of making a profit.
A one world government can't work. Democracy only works well on a local area. Let's say there is a world wide government. China has the largest population in the world so they would get to dictate the laws for the rest of us. I don't want to be ruled from communist China. I want a local government that is accountable to me for their actions and policies. The values in China are different from the values I hold and different from the values held by the people living around me.
Quote:
The real reason is that the biggies just don't want to hand over any power they have. They like to be in control FOR THEIR OWN SAKE, their own interests, their own power.
No. Just accept the fact that not everyone wants a one world government because not everyone believes what you believe. I like deomocracy and capitalism. I don't like socialism or communism. I don't want to live under a socialist or communist government. If you want to live under socialism, fine. But don't demand that eveyone else submit to that kind of government because lots of us don't want that kind of government.
Quote:
If you want to keep national power, fine. But don't come with moral and ethics in that case. If you attack a country, because you want to and have the power, don't complain if the people in that country hit back, kill your soldiers, bomb the invaders and terrorize the civilians of the attacker nation.
It is preposterous to say the US just goes around attacking countries "just because it wants to." Please don't try to say that the US deserves for terrorists to attack it.
The US is fighting with Iraqis against terrorists. In fact the US won and have haneded Iraq's defense over to them and have moved out of the major cities and soon out of Iraq entirely except for perhaps some training forces Iraq requests to remain.
Quote:
You cannot demand national sovereignity on one hand and cite moral and ethics on the other.
That is a silly statement. The US can certainly have soverignty and go to war with morality and ethics behind it. When Japan attacked the US for exampe, the US had ever moral reason to go to war.
We don't need someone enforcing their will on the world with a one world government. Government is most just, fair, and responsive to the people at the smallest possible local level.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 01:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry, BUT", is a provocation, especially if used so often as you do. What exactly are you sorry for, when you use that phrase? Can you tell that?
I explained to you that when I start off with "I'm sorry but" I mean I must disagree with you, but please don't take offense." Saying "I'm sorry but" is somewhat shorter. Don't take offense when ther is nothing in "I'm sorry but" that could possibly considered an insult or provocation in any way.
I'm sorry, but no one and nothing is forcing you to disagree. You do it willingly and deliberately and you are not sorry at all to disagree. So this is just a meaningless phrase.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm pretty fed up with all that "can't work" stuff. The big corps have no problem to operate worldwide, and the FBI or Interpol are big and large-scale police organisations as well.
Corporations have the goal of making a profit.
A one world government can't work. Democracy only works well on a local area. Let's say there is a world wide government. China has the largest population in the world so they would get to dictate the laws for the rest of us. I don't want to be ruled from communist China. I want a local government that is accountable to me for their actions and policies. The values in China are different from the values I hold and different from the values held by the people living around me.
Quote:
The real reason is that the biggies just don't want to hand over any power they have. They like to be in control FOR THEIR OWN SAKE, their own interests, their own power.
No. Just accept the fact that not everyone wants a one world government because not everyone believes what you believe. I like deomocracy and capitalism. I don't like socialism or communism. I don't want to live under a socialist or communist government. If you want to live under socialism, fine. But don't demand that eveyone else submit to that kind of government because lots of us don't want that kind of government.
It is preposterous to assume that just because there is an international court for settling arguments between nations that would be backed by an enforcement agency with the power to act on behalf of international law and that court's decisions a "world government" would be necessary or suddenly everyone would be ruled by communist China.
Quote:
Quote:
If you want to keep national power, fine. But don't come with moral and ethics in that case. If you attack a country, because you want to and have the power, don't complain if the people in that country hit back, kill your soldiers, bomb the invaders and terrorize the civilians of the attacker nation.
It is preposterous to say the US just goes around attacking countries "just because it wants to." Please don't try to say that the US deserves for terrorists to attack it.
That is a silly statement. It has nothing to do with "deserving" - if there is no mutual international consent, no generally accepted law and order which everyone submits to, then one reasoning for going into a war is as good as another. If a country says, to hell with the UN, if we find it right to go into war we go, then EVERYONE can do it, and with every means deemed appropriate.
You either abide to the law or you don't. What you cannot do is making up your own law and cry foul when everyone else does the same.
Quote:
Quote:
You cannot demand national sovereignity on one hand and cite moral and ethics on the other.
That is a silly statement. The US can certainly have soverignty and go to war with morality and ethics behind it. When Japan attacked the US for exampe, the US had ever moral reason to go to war.
That is an irrelevant statement, because moral plays no role here. The US didn't NEED any morality and ethics behind them to go to war, when Japan attacked them. There was no need to morally or ethically justify their attempts to defend themselves, and especially not to the Japanese. Whom could the US have turned to, alternatively? Which agency might have tried to stop the Japanese for them?
This is fundamentally different with Iraq, and obviously so.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 02:37 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 14:52, 26 Aug 2009.
|
I am a little confused about your position because you have seemed to make conflicting statments. First, you said, "If they - or everyone else - are not willing to hand over a big part of their power to legal authorities THEY are just another brute with big fists bullying others around."
You also said "I'm pretty fed up with all that "can't work" stuff" and what I said can't work is a one-world government.
Furthur, you also previously said, "As long as countries basically don't accept that there is an INTERnational court and an INTERnational police force with INTERnational troops THAT HAVE AUTHORITY OVER THEM, as long as that there is no law, no moral, no ethics no nothing, only national interests.
So your previous position seemed to be that you want an internatinal court that has authority and an international police force that has power over the nations and with an army to enforce that power.
Now you seem to be reversing yourself. An international court with an army to enforce its will would be a world government.
Quote:
It is preposterous to assume that just because there is an international court for settling arguments between nations that would be backed by an enforcement agency with the power to act on behalf of international law and that court's decisions a "world government" would be necessary or suddenly everyone would be ruled by communist China.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with "deserving" - if there is no mutual international consent, no generally accepted law and order which everyone submits to, then one reasoning for going into a war is as good as another.
No, going to war because you are attacked is not the same as going to war becaue the other country's leader said your leader is a moron.
Quote:
The US didn't NEED any morality and ethics behind them to go to war, when Japan attacked them.
That seems to contradict your previous statement that "You cannot demand national sovereignity on one hand and cite moral and ethics on the other." I think my example of the reason that the US went to war with Japan was a perfect example.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 02:49 PM |
|
|
The U.S. should defer to the U.N., because the U.N. is magically perfect, and it's magically perfect because the U.N. says so.
Hearts, stars and horseshoes! Clovers and blue moons! Pots of gold and rainbows! And me red balloons!
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
