[hermit22]

Originally posted by Cairo
Hermit22,
Saying,"So does Israel." in response to my assertion that Iraq has broken U.N resolutions that carry a penalty of "use of force" is flat out untrue! In all your "subjective" "unbiased" "fair and balanced" research, you failed to comprehend the difference between Charter 6 and Charter 7.
Charter 6 is non-comparable because everybody breaks Charter 6 resolutions. Israel has never thumbed her nose and disobeyed a Charter 7 resolution...Iraq has!

http://users.otenet.gr/~prof/UNcharter.htm

That is utter and complete bullshit. You want to argue legal without knowing what you're talking about? I'm not an expert in international law, but I think I can find a few things in just a few moments.

So which article of Chapter 7 are you referring to? Would it be article 39, which points out the right of the United Nations to determine the status of peace. Now let's take a Resolution at random from the list of resolutions that involve Israel. I was originally going to use the Litani River Project, but I figured that you would apply your ridiculous 'liberals rewrote history' whine. So I'll stay contemporary. I'm going to focus on SCRes 1402 for you, which called on both sides to take steps to end the escalation in conflict. It specifically called on Israel to withdraw its troops from Palestinian cities, but Israel did not comply in anything like an expedited manner.
You really do not understand the difference between Chapter 6 and Chapter 7, do you? Chapter 6 deals with "disputes," Chapter 7 with the "breach of peace." Go ahead and try to argue that there have been no Security Council Resolutions regarding Israel that deal with breaches of peace.

Of course, I do think it's amusing that a right-winger, who theoretically should disdain the liberal institutionalism that established the UN (you know, the whole realism vs. liberalism idea), uses the UN as a justification, even if they're wrong in their argument.


Fair and balanced would be the lying mantra of your side's media network. But hey, repeat it enough and it's true, right? Isn't that what you're saying happened before the liberal corruption of history? Apparently it is fair and balanced to call an entire population vermin. Whatever. Go look up the etimology of the word Semitism, and you'll realize you're an 'anti-Semite.'

Truth is black and white, it's either true or it's not.

Too bad you're proving yourself to be colorblind.

Pre-war is getting troops into position and devising a plan or strategy. During war is what we are doing now. Post war is clean up and rebuild.

Oh right. There's only 3 phases to any conflict. How would you describe Kashmir? How about Columbia? Has Israel been at war since 1967? Can you see how ridiculous this assumption is?

Of course, this does assume that every action a state engages in has something to do with war. No peace here.

Hooked on phonics could work for you! Comprehension 101 wouldn't hurt either. You have more years in school? That means only that you have more Liberal Socialist indoctrination and brainwashing than I do...and you're ~bragging~????? Oh, I know, you skipped Comprehension 101 to take How to use a condom 101...Right? Puuulease!

Hooked on phonics would work for me? Ok, I'm insulted. I guess that English minor I picked up when I was an undergrad was meaningless. Thank you for pointing it out. With that, and your revelation about bin Laden's life, it seems that your insight is so incredible that there's no way I could fight its power.

Yup, I'm bragging about having more school. I'm bragging about trying to become an active member of society. I'm proud of my accomplishments. Of course, you don't know what I studied as an undergrad, the quality of the education, or the political leanings of my professors (or if that was even a relevant issue). I was a Computer Science major with a Creative Writing minor. After graduation, I jumped into a National Security Studies master's program in which most of the professors (4 of the core 5) are lifelong Republicans. So the "brainwashing" by the "Liberal Socialist" system would be difficult to prove.

Maybe you should get some more education. It might open your mind up a bit. And have you forgotten that your husband had to be "indoctrinated," as you call it, in order to become a teacher?

Your "Comprehension 101" comment made me laugh, though. There's no way you could have known that I got over a 700 on the reading portion of my SATs. (I don't remember the exact score as that was probably 10 years ago.) Of course I'm not going to instantly comprehend everything I see - no one does. But I think more of the problem lies in your ability to communicate effectively.

At least I know how to protect myself from HIV and the risk of helping increase the world's overabundant population.

Lenin was a Socialist, he was about to install a Parliment system of Government that would stop the Communist trend, so Stalin had him killed before he did it.

Uh no. One of the things Lenin wanted to do was give the Kazakhs, and a few others that were revolting and being oppressed, some autonomy. (Unusual, of course, for Lenin to have a problem with mass murder. He read as much Heinzen as Hitler. And it's a lot more complicated than that, but I don't care enough to be more specific.) You may be talking about his expansion of the Central Committee, or the granting of legislative powers to the Central Planning Commission - both of which already existed and were not an establishment of a new Duma.

Every time you spread misinformation and lie about the Patriot Act, FISC, or hinder our Government's ability to protect and keep US safe, you are, by proxy, infringing upon the Right To Life of 3,000+ American citizens.

I'm pretty sure I've never mentioned the Patriot Act or FISC in this discussion.

So are only 3,000+ citizens worthy of the right to live (and yes, I notice your thinly veiled reference to the abortion debate, and I think it's preposterous). I realize that you are trying to make a reference to the deaths on September 11 to sensationalize the matter. But you don't have any substance - assuming of course that you realize you are essentially advocating the elimination of freedom of speech (not forcibly, but by some sense of guilt or shame).

That tape was not bin Laden. Or do you limit your current events to only one source?

Nope. I'm well aware that a Swiss lab says that there are problems with the tape - which you didn't bother mentioning in defense. Instead, you merely claimed, without calling upon any source for proof, that you knew that bin Laden was alive. However, when the US government claimed that the tape was bin Laden (which it was not alone in doing), it mentioned that the tape had been transferred over a telephone line, which could be responsible for the wave analysis problems the Swiss lab found. I don't know; I don't claim to be an expert in such manners. But I would posit that more signs point to bin Laden being alive than dead. That whole no body thing is a big deal. I equate it to a murder investigation. Police don't assume that a suspected murderer (and before you jump on me for saying suspected, realize that I'm relying on a social convention, not an assumption that bin Laden is not guilty. It would be unsurprising to see you attempt to distort that into some frm of collusion with terrorists or some other bs.) is dead simply because they attacked his hideout, burnt it to the ground, and couldn't find any trace of his body in the ashes. They especially don't drop the investigation when a tape recording claiming to be him is confirmed to actually be him by their own crime lab.

The Czech Republic says there is an Iraqi/Al Qaeda link. And everybody agrees there are many Saddam/terrorist links.

Everybody, huh? Who constitutes this everybody? And do you really think that the Bush administration would not be beating the war drums of an al Qaeda connection if it was there? They dropped it as soon as reporters began investigating their claims, which was that a lone Iraqi official met with a single member of al Qaeda in Prague. It didn't hold water then, and trying to bring it up now does not either.

Your credibility in debate is linked to my interest to keep replying to you...if all you have are lies or ignorance to bring to the table, I lose interest and become bored(as I have with tw). It's just not fun to debate with an un-armed man.

Well, your credibility is linked to your ability to respond without basing your argument in insults, generalizations without any substance and misrepresentations of the truth.

I never said "single-minded", again, comprehension is key! Oh, you have no problem with having an impeached President so morally bankrupt that he refuses to be accountable and step down. Who looks into the eyes of the American people and lies when he didn't have to. Who committed perjury and obstruction...and people like you keep begging for more! No wonder he thought he was above the law and could get away with it, your ilk make it easy!
HA! Eloquent L I A R !
Well, if you think talking down to you is more impressive than talking to you, you must love Algore!

If comprehension is key, then you threw yours away long ago. My point was that Clinton is a better speaker than Bush will ever be, which you didn't bother to refute (mostly because it would be too difficult, I'm assuming.) The great thing about Clinton is that he did talk to you. The bad thing about Bush is that he acts like he doesn't have to be bothered to learn the speech well enough to deliver it to the public. And that's even worse than talking down to me.

Yes, I like Al Gore - I have no complex about an intelligent man. I'm not sure he should run for President again, but I like many of his political ideas. And I view the entire Lewinsky fiasco to be an example of the character assassination certain political forces were engaged in. They could not get the American public to respond to much of Clinton's inadequacies as President (and yes, I believe there were many), so they tried to overblow a relatively trivial, and definately private event; a moral indescretion that he was not alone in committing.

Personally, I'm more of an actions speak louder than words kinda gal.

I can't pass up this opportunity to show you the inadequacy of your association of extremists with the mainstream.

"Actions speak louder than words" is practically a direct quote from Carlo Piscane, who was influential in Brousse's development of the idea of "propaganda by the deed:" the idea that revolutionaries can not rely simply on words to spread their propaganda. India's HSRA followed this with the "philosophy of the bomb," which said that the best action to use was the employment of bombs. And modern terrorism was born when the Narodnaya Volya incorporated these two ideas.

So does this mean you're a terrorist kinda gal?