Looters beware!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NY94J30]

You're talking of world safety? It is due to the kind of thought you have expressed that America will remain a target. Unilaterlaists and neocons are the crux of our troubles. We can sustain the the "unipolar moment," - if that really is something to strive for - while at the same time acting in accord with a global consensus. Though we may be the most powerful nation on the planet, we must live with the rest.

[JustinStrife]

Just because we have to live with them, doesn't mean we have to bow down to them or go out of our way to make them happy. The President's job is above all else, to ensure the safety of America. Nowhere does it say in the constitution, we are to ever give that up for some U.N. order. Which means if we have to do pre-emptive attacks on terrorists and dictators, the President has that right within reason.

[NY94J30]

Just because we have to live with them, doesn't mean we have to bow down to them or go out of our way to make them happy. The President's job is above all else, to ensure the safety of America.

I agree, but we cannot maintain order if we do not act within the established framework

Nowhere does it say in the constitution, we are to ever give that up for some U.N. order. .

Article VI, sec. 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

The United States is a signatory to the UN Charter

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-cont.htm

Which means if we have to do pre-emptive attacks on terrorists and dictators, the President has that right within reason. .

The UN Charter (which we are party to, and is thus the supreme law of the land), Ch VI, Art 33 and Ch VII, Art 39 prohibits pre-emptive strikes.

Of course there is a more intricate argument pertaining to customary international law, which I do not have the time or energy to get into - suffice it to say the Bush adminstration's justification does not reach that threshold.

However, I do think that there was power to take military action under the UNSCRs ending the first Gulf War - if only those were the drums being beaten to start the war.

[jdmfreak]

The link dont work for me.

[NY94J30]

You want to see it? Check the PBS website under Frontline, its a newsmagazine show on the network.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...view/

[RMiller]

I agree, but we cannot maintain order if we do not act within the established framework



Article VI, sec. 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

The United States is a signatory to the UN Charter

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-cont.htm



The UN Charter (which we are party to, and is thus the supreme law of the land), Ch VI, Art 33 and Ch VII, Art 39 prohibits pre-emptive strikes.

Of course there is a more intricate argument pertaining to customary international law, which I do not have the time or energy to get into - suffice it to say the Bush adminstration's justification does not reach that threshold.

However, I do think that there was power to take military action under the UNSCRs ending the first Gulf War - if only those were the drums being beaten to start the war.

I used to share your view. However, after speaking with a number of people who have studied the UN, I now realize that it is in no position to make decisions such as allowing Hussein to be ousted. If anything, the UN should be a humanitarian effort. I urge you to take another look at the UN's role in international policing, and why we didn't have Germany's or Russia's support in Iraq, for example.

[s13sr20chris]

That's a fantastic violation of the Geneva Conventions. Necessity and Proportionality - I don't see either.

the geneva convention does not apply to terrorism.

we should never have initiated or joined the un. the founding fathers were not into that sort of thing. i would like to see the video though.

pbs, what a rediculous waste of my tax dollars.

[NY94J30]

I used to share your view. However, after speaking with a number of people who have studied the UN, I now realize that it is in no position to make decisions such as allowing Hussein to be ousted. If anything, the UN should be a humanitarian effort. I urge you to take another look at the UN's role in international policing, and why we didn't have Germany's or Russia's support in Iraq, for example.

What view did you used to share? That we are party to the UN Charter? I'm not sure that your having spoken to people that have "studied" the UN should make me reconsider my thinking. That preumes alot.

Do I think that UN is ideal? Of course not, neither was the LON, it represents an ideal that the international community has not yet reached but is moving toward.

The role the UN plays in international policing is again an ideal. The Security Council structure does not work within the context or realpolitik (the political veto), nor does it represent the current global power [in]balance. But what it does is respects the Kellog-Briand notion of renunciation of all war, and also the sovereignty states. And has, in the past 50 years, done a fairly good job of upholding IL and maintaining some semblance of global order.

I'm not following your question as to Germany's and Russia's support. Though I would say we did not have their support in Iraq because we did not have the support of international law in the adminstration's justification.

the geneva convention does not apply to terrorism.

we should never have initiated or joined the un. the founding fathers were not into that sort of thing. i would like to see the video though.

pbs, what a rediculous waste of my tax dollars.

Since you're basing your argument on a video you did not see, I'll fill you in. American soldiers decided that an Iraqi civilian was looting wood and determined that was cause to crush his vehicle with a tank.

The grave breaches provision in Geneva IV provides that a grave breach (i.e. war crime) consists of:

"extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly"

An original intent argument as to the joining of the UN is absurd. Yes, George Washington's farewell speech warned of the danger of foreign entanglements, but none could have conceived of the world we live in today. By your logic, we should not be party to the ICBM treaties either.

And PBS - educational television - a waste of money? I could name 1000 more wasteful federal appropriations.

[s13sr20chris]

i still dont think that geneva applies to terrorism. geneva only works if everyone goes by it. therefore, it will never work.

there is a difference between a treaty and the un. a treaty is an agreement that may not state but usually implies the implicit evil of human nature. that makes them more apt to succeed. the un is a humanistic approach to an impossible problem. the problem starts with my personal sinful nature and goes so far as to infect every last one of us at conception. the un is a joke, a very noble joke. its sad.

i believe there are easily 1000+ bigger wastes of my tax dollars. we can agree on that. thank you tax and spend liberals. now the "neo-dems" will just make it worse.

edit: i think i just invented the term "neo-dems"

[NY94J30]

i still dont think that geneva applies to terrorism.

Your opinion as to whether the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists is 1) irrelevant, because in the video this thread is about there were no terrorists 2) Is unqualified 3) Is based on what? something you heard on the news once?

geneva only works if everyone goes by it. therefore, it will never work.

That statement is the equivalent of saying that the penal code only works if everyone abides by it, since there are still law breakers, it does not work. You have ignored international criminal sanctions (Nuremberg, Tokyo,Tadic, Milosovic...).

there is a difference between a treaty and the un. a treaty is an agreement that may not state but usually implies the implicit evil of human nature. that makes them more apt to succeed. the un is a humanistic approach to an impossible problem. the problem starts with my personal sinful nature and goes so far as to infect every last one of us at conception. the un is a joke, a very noble joke. its sad.

I cannot understand the premise of your argument, but I will try to address it. The UN was created by a "charter." A charter is the same as a treaty, accord, pact, convention, etc. A treaty is a binding written agreement between parties. We signed and ratified the UN Charter. I'm not sure how an agreement b/w parties signifies man's inherent evil nature and how that then helps them succeed. You go off on some convoluted moral tangent that I can't address, so I'll move on.

i believe there are easily 1000+ bigger wastes of my tax dollars. we can agree on that. thank you tax and spend liberals. now the "neo-dems" will just make it worse.

edit: i think i just invented the term "neo-dems"

Don't be so quick to point the finger at the Dems, pork barrel spending is a bigger problem w/ Republicans, and moreover, this adminstration is far from the model of fiscal responsiblity that Republicans have come to expect. Giant tax cuts plus giant spending initiatives doesn't add up to anything but defecit.

[ihatemycar]

do you have some sort of political science or overall bada$$ at politics degree? because you have pretty much schooled, ashamed, and owned everyone that disagrees with you lol. just wondering. i for one, agree with what you say as far as the international relations, and geneva convention, etc.... the soldiers should not have done that. its was unnecessary, simply put.

[s13sr20chris]

oh shoot, i did not see that you had responded!1)guess i should have watched the video3)yeah, g gordon liddy explained it very well

we will just have to agree to disagree on the evil nature of people. to me its entirely relevent. to you its just some uneducated right winger yelling repent and pointing the finger. i apologize for probably making christianity even more repulsive to you(some serious assuming going on here, tell me if i am wrong). a treaty does imply the implicit evil of human nature but i am speaking in christianeese. thats a language that will only throw people off if they are not familiar. its prob a good idea that you did not go to far with that.

i just looked up charter and treaty so i would not be speaking out of my bum. treaty has implication of negotiating, but charter has a less political/more commercial tone to it. im seeing a difference, but im no scholar.

your right. since i invented the term neo-dem i think i can include your average republican. you see i am not a republican. i am a conservative. so conservative that i make limbaugh look like a communist. i like the tax cuts but hate the spending(ug, prescription drug plan). so we are in agreement. personally i think any old school democrat(jfk for example) is more conservative than most current republicans. thats just the way the world is changing.

[JustinStrife]

Lets not even talk about today's Democrats... Almost as Socialist as they come...

[NY94J30]

do you have some sort of political science or overall bada$$ at politics degree? because you have pretty much schooled, ashamed, and owned everyone that disagrees with you lol. just wondering. i for one, agree with what you say as far as the international relations, and geneva convention, etc.... the soldiers should not have done that. its was unnecessary, simply put.

Actually my name is Condoleezza Rice...

Just kidding, I'm Rick James, *****!

[NY94J30]

Lets not even talk about today's Democrats... Almost as Socialist as they come...

You want to see socialism, look to Europe (France, Spain...). There is nothing that really approaches socialism here. As much as the right - and left - would gripe, the American political spectrum is very narrow. The substantive differences between your mainstream democrat and republican are negligible. As for those on the "fringes" of the parties, they do not extend as far from the middle as many might like to portray (again, look to Western Europe for a true spectrum). The perils of a two party system.

[NY94J30]

we will just have to agree to disagree on the evil nature of people.

I don't necessarily disagree, and understand your point, if you are speaking in a Lockean/Hobbesian sense.

Quote » i apologize for probably making christianity even more repulsive to you(some serious assuming going on here, tell me if i am wrong).[/quote]

On the contrary, I am fascinated by all philosophies.

Quote »i just looked up charter and treaty so i would not be speaking out of my bum. treaty has implication of negotiating, but charter has a less political/more commercial tone to it. im seeing a difference, but im no scholar.[/quote]

You'll find that in the context of international law, the terms are interchangable.

[s13sr20chris]

I don't necessarily disagree, and understand your point, if you are speaking in a Lockean/Hobbesian sense.

not familiar with hobbes(i will spare you the cartoon joke, thats all i could come up with as i happen to be a blue collar grunt:) ) but john locke did put it well. the bible put it best when it said, (paraphrase) no one is righteous no not one, or every heart is desperately wicked, etc.



On the contrary, I am fascinated by all philosophies.

oooh, i could get all over your case for the use of the word philosophy, but im not really that anal. i know what you meant.



You'll find that in the context of international law, the terms are interchangable.

ill take your word for it.

[s13sr20chris]

Actually my name is Codoleezza Rice...

condi rocks. nice to have a black woman thats a conservative. shes quite good too, not just a token minority. being a minority and a woman means she can pretty much say anything she wants. its good.

[s13sr20chris]

You want to see socialism, look to Europe (France, Spain...). There is nothing that really approaches socialism here. As much as the right - and left - would gripe, the American political spectrum is very narrow. The substantive differences between your mainstream democrat and republican are negligible. As for those on the "fringes" of the parties, they don not extend as far from the middle as many might like to portray (again, look to Western Europe for a true spectrum). The perils of a two party system.

your right. its the leanings that have me and a lot of other conservatives worried. the gradual "loosening" of society including such things as(dare i say it) the removal of prayer from school, has degraded our culture, our politics, and made us a stench in the nose of God. i think its all one ball of wax bro.

[NY94J30]

Well we don't agree on much.

1) When I said philosophy, I meant it as you read it. Philosophy = love of wisdom. Religion being a philosophy limted to social mores, and sometimes delving into the mystery of sentience - but often disappointingly.

2) Condi - Sell out as an academic, and nothing more than an admistration mouthpiece voicing propaganda she can't possible believe ("All's going well in Iraq." comes to mind). As for black conservatives, there's a certain irony in supporting values intent on holding you back.

3) Prayer in school - interesting topic, but you would have to clarify you position on it for me to comment. I suppose you are for private prayer in any denomination?

[Omar]

FOX and CNN and almost other networks are biased. They only show what the public wants to see.

Ever wonder why you only see the Palestinians attacking the Israelis? Ever wonder why you dont see the Israelis attack the Palestinians?

Please dont tell me that Israelis never do anything unless they are attacked because that is not true.

Later...

- Omar

[NY94J30]

Lucky for you the marketplace of ideas has expanded immensely - only problem now is qualifying the new sources of media.

[JustinStrife]

I disagree with your thinking on Condi, as well as your view on Black Conservatives. I do not know where you might possibly get your facts on this particular issue, as the only people I see holding Blacks back in society, are the democrats. Please tell me how Conservatives are holding them back?

[NY94J30]

Oh you disagree with me? Suppose you supply some facts to support your premise.

I take my cues from history and society: If conservatives had won out there is no 14th or 15th Amendments; if we make it past that point, we would remain in the era of Plessy v. Ferguson; In to the 20th century: Liberal forces gave us the end to miscegination laws, then the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Please demonstrate to me the socially progressive character of conservativism - or is it not progress that we have deemed women and all races equal to white men?

Moreover, is that enough - does that provide equality of opportunity in and of itself? Should we applaud Bush b/c he has a couple blacks and latinos in his adminstration. Blacks make up 13% of the population, as do hispanics - they should therefore proportionally make up 1/4 of the nation's power structure, instead of 3/4 compensation in the job place.

[JustinStrife]

If your democrats are so for the minorities, why do so few of them actually have minorities working with them(outside of Bill Clinton).

And since when did Affirmative Action ever do anything for the black culture? How about your democrats who support reperations? That will do nothing but make things worse between blacks and the rest of America.

The fact that the 3rd most powerful man in America is black doesn't mean anything to you, shows to me where your thinking is. Colin Powell and Condi are both powerful spokesmen for the black community, if they chose to listen. They are not lapdogs for the Republican party as you so believe.

The democrats of today, are nothing but shadows, of the democrats of 40-50 years ago.

[s13sr20chris]

FOX and CNN and almost other networks are biased. They only show what the public wants to see.

Ever wonder why you only see the Palestinians attacking the Israelis? Ever wonder why you dont see the Israelis attack the Palestinians?

Please dont tell me that Israelis never do anything unless they are attacked because that is not true.

Later...

- Omar

i see and hear of the israelis being the aggressor too much. its their land and i wish the un would allow them to just take it. their military shurely could at any time. they have been raked over the coals and played too kindly to the un.

[s13sr20chris]

3) Prayer in school - interesting topic, but you would have to clarify you position on it for me to comment. I suppose you are for private prayer in any denomination?

man, you have no idea just how hardcore i am. i wish(although i know it cannot happen according to prophesy) for a christian fundamentalist government. i cant wait untill this whole "life as we know it" is over.

[s13sr20chris]

Please demonstrate to me the socially progressive character of conservativism - or is it not progress that we have deemed women and all races equal to white men?

conservatism is not progressive. thats the point. the flaws you mentioned were not flaws of conservatism. they were of the people. you will always have that. i attribute a certain amount a liberal flaws to just personal stuff. for example slick willy. need i say more about that? progressive is such a stupid word in this context. its just a euphemism for "getting crazier and crazier".

[JustinStrife]

i see and hear of the israelis being the aggressor too much. its their land and i wish the un would allow them to just take it. their military shurely could at any time. they have been raked over the coals and played too kindly to the un.

I am in agreement with u about Israel. How many suicide attacks must be launched against them, before the rest of the world realizes the truth about their conflict? They are trying to survive where as the Palestinians are trying to kill them. There can be no peace in Israel, as long as the Arabs refuse to acknowledge Israel's existence.

[NY94J30]

You neither rebutted the facts that I presented, nor offered any facts to support your assertions.

If your democrats are so for the minorities, why do so few of them actually have minorities working with them(outside of Bill Clinton). ]

My Democrats? Point me in the direction that indicates that I am a Democrat? Further, I will tell you precisely why more do not have minorites working for them - the same reason that Bush doesn't - becasue educational opportunitis are limited through the culture and cycle of poverty that is a residual effect of those items I mentioned in my last post and is perpetuated by conservative efforts such as No Child Left Behind and voucher programs that are a patch on the wrong end of the program.

Quote »And since when did Affirmative Action ever do anything for the black culture? How about your democrats who support reperations? That will do nothing but make things worse between blacks and the rest of America.[/quote]

AA, another patch at the wrong end, but made necessary by the failure to address the core issues in education.

Reparation? Where do you get your news? What mainstream politician is talking about reparations?

Quote »The fact that the 3rd most powerful man in America is black doesn't mean anything to you, shows to me where your thinking is. Colin Powell and Condi are both powerful spokesmen for the black community, if they chose to listen. They are not lapdogs for the Republican party as you so believe.[/quote]

Who are the first two most powrful in your estimation? Colon Powell doesn't apporach the top ten. You'll see just how powerful Powell is when he leaves the adminstrtion in November (win or not). Powell is not a conservative and made a miscalculation when joining this adminstration. He miscalculated the amount of power hed be able to wield. Being a company man, he hasn't been outspoken about the fact that he is undermined at every turn.

Quote »The democrats of today, are nothing but shadows, of the democrats of 40-50 years ago. [/quote]

The Republicans today are a mere shadow of their founding fathers of the second half of the 19th C.