Originally posted by Pimp: is that the piece i sent you?? Yes. maybe he's ready for a fight... thinks he's ready, anyway ("how would you rate and analyze... the quality/accuracy thereof?") as highly as i rate our own.. Hmm....no less highly? (Israel)...is obviously something that is going to have to be addressed... the whole thing has been a boiling cauldron for centuries... Eh, really the West's interest (excluding that little Crusades disagreement, and that was really more religious than economic, wasn't it? And European anyway)- specifically, American interest paralleled the rise of the automobile. This is all pretty much the fruit of 20th century history, economically speaking. ...the technology to harness alternative renewable, and cleaner energy sources is already there...it just needs developing and adopting.. and yes it takes time.. More to the point: how much are we willing to pay for the transition? Or how much - and in what currency - are we willing to pay for not doing so? I think that latter is the more pressing question before us.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Strange Discharge: I live in DC right off 24th & Connecticut Ave. Four blocks West on CT is the British Embassy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm...the British Embassy I've been to is on Massachusetts Ave - which runs east-west outbound (at a slight northern slant, outbound), not Conn. which runs south-north (with a slant to west, outbound). Now, 24th runs exactly n-s, and has several discrete segments; while one segment does intersect Conn. due to the slant (near the Florida Ave access to Rock Creek Parkway), I don't recall any British dip. establishment of any sort. Can you help clarify...?
strange discharge, member #683.... he descended onto our forum in march 2001, and proceeded to attempt to piss people off... he left shortly after with his tail between his legs...
MmmHMM...Thought he was full of shit, but was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, in case he was suffering from a 'thinko' (akin to a typo). There are no private residences within 4 blocks of the Brit. Embassy on Mass Ave (that section is called 'Embassy Row' for a reason)- and the closest possible ones are way-y-y beyond the price range of anyone who'd frequent Fugly.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pimp: nicodemus.. i'm glad you agree with some of what i say, but you bring up my countries past.... your point being i guess "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, that's basically what I was driving at. Any successful ruling establishment - be it religious or secular - has become corrupt enough at some point to have closets full of skeletons. Believe me, I have few illusions about the actions or the motivations of those in the upper echelon of my country's power structure, or any other. I think that the importance of history [i/]and its many different versions[/i] is underrated, particularly the events of the 20th century. In a relatively short period of time, humanity has accelerated far and beyond most dreams or nightmares. Instead of inventing pollution-free renewable energy sources, we now have the ability to wipe ourselves out in several tasty ways. Nukes, anthrax, small pox, mustard gas, passenger planes flying into buildings... We have grown too close together to have the luxury of ignoring our neighbors. The only way we will survive is if we are willing to listen to other points of view and make a valid attempt at understanding why these views are held. If that doesn't work, well then you're left with no option but to bust up with the leather bondage belt and bend them over... <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote There, we differ. Like I said, I certainly don't agree with everything my government does, but I could have it a lot worse. I love traveling, especially out of the country, but every time I return I appreciate being back in the USA. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote Your mom missed a pill too?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Prophetically uttered by Sparky, the Resident Oracle: wow<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well we r at war. i am watching cnn or sumthin and george bush is talking about how we r at another cold war type situation. n other words we r all gonna die
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sparky: well we r at war. i am watching cnn or sumthin and george bush is talking about how we r at another cold war type situation. n other words we r all gonna die<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WOW...you keep it so concise Spanky...good job!
Spunky IS da man! Never mind the bollocks from all those professional pundits and reporters. {leans back, closes eyes and smiles relaxedly as the stereo wafts, "It's the end of the wor-r-rld as we know it....and I feel-l-l-l fine-e-e-e...."}
"They are harbouring a terrorist and they need to hand him over. There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty." - George W. Bush BUSH REJECTS TALIBAN OFFER TO HAND BIN LADEN TO A "NEUTRAL COUNTRY" IF THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS PRODUCED. There are three basic reasons for this decision: First they don't have any evidence; second, if he was tried in a court of true justice the U.S. government would lose; and thirdly they don't want him handed over to anyone because they need an excuse to bomb Afghanistan for as long as they want. Bush's war plans likely to violate international law SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN TIMES NEWS NETWORK EW DELHI: Though it is too early to predict the shape of Operation Infinite Justice, the US would probably be violating international law if it attacks Afghanistan or any other country. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in two circumstances. The first, where the UN Security Council authorises the use of force under Chapter VII of the Charter. And the second, where a country resorts to self-defence in the face of an armed attack. The UN Security Council has twice passed resolutions (1267 of 1998 and 1333 of 1999) calling on the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden to either a country where he has been indicted or to one where he will be brought to justice. Though these resolutions were passed under Chapter VII and impose sanctions on the Taliban, they do not authorise the use of force against the regime by any country. In the absence of a resolution specifically authorising force, the Taliban's refusal to hand over bin Laden cannot legally be construed as grounds for Washington to attack Afghanistan. Even if a UN mandate exists, it would be illegal to put civilians and civilian infrastructure in harm's way. What about self-defence? Though Article 51 of the UN Charter allows a country to defend itself against an armed attack, the US would have to conform to the International Court of Justice's landmark ruling on the scope of Article 51 contained in its Nicaragua judgment of 1986. The ICJ defined an armed attack as either an event in which one State directly sends troops into another or "the sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands...which carry out acts of armed force against another State...(amounting to) actual armed attack by regular forces". The attacks in New York and Washington clearly constitute an act of armed force committed by armed bands. However, in order to justify attacking Afghanistan, the US would at the very least have to prove both that Bin Laden was responsible and that he acted 'on or behalf of" the Taliban government of Afghanistan. According to Prof Louis Henkin, one of the most distinguished US scholars of international law, the right of self-defence enshrined in Article 51 is "limited to cases of armed attack that are generally beyond doubt; a state's responsibility for acts of terrorism is rarely beyond doubt and difficult to prove...Article 51 gives a right...to defend against an armed attack. This right does not allow retaliation for armed attacks...or (force) to deter future attacks". That is why the US has held it would be illegal for India to attack terrorist camps in Pakistan or for Milosevic's Yugoslavia to have gone after KLA bases in northern Albania. Prof Henkin writes that "a state that has been the victim of an act of terrorism will have to pursue other remedies against states that it believes responsible and against the states that encourage, promote, condone, or tolerate terrorism or provide a haven to terrorists". So far, the US has not pursued other remedies. It has not moved the UN, nor has it responded to the Taliban statement that they would extradite bin Laden given proof of his involvement in last week's terrorist attacks. The Taliban may be bluffing, but international law requires the US to seek peaceful resolution of the crisis and not resort to the unilateral use of force. "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." --Hitler's #2 Man, Hermann Goering
(Gulf war) Although I agree that Saddam Hussein remains a serious threat to peace, there happens to be a way to deal with that question, one that has been established under international law. That procedure is the foundation of international law and international order and is also the supreme law of the land in the United States. If a country, say the United States, feels that a threat is posed to peace, it is to approach the Security Council, which has the sole authority to react to that threat. The Security Council is required to pursue all peaceful means to deal with the threat to peace, and if it determines that all such means have failed, it may then specifically authorise the use of force. Nothing else is permitted under international law, except with regard to the question, here irrelevant, of self-defence. The U.S. and Britain have simply announced, very clearly and loudly, that they are violent criminal states that are intent on destroying totally the fabric of international law, a fabric that has been built up laboriously over many years. They have announced that they will do as they please and will use violence as they please, independently of what anyone else thinks. In my view, that is the sole significance of the bombing and is probably the reason for it. Even the timing of the bombing was chosen so as to make this position very evident. The bombing began at exactly 5 p.m. EST in the U.S., just as the Security Council was opening an emergency session to deal with the emerging crisis in Iraq. The U.S. chose that moment to launch a war crime - an aggressive illegal act of force - against Iraq without even notifying the Council. That was surely intended and understood to be a message of contempt for the Security Council. It is in fact another underscoring of the lesson of the Gulf war, which was explained very clearly by George Bush when missiles were falling on Baghdad. At that time, he announced his famous New World Order in four simple words - "What we say, goes." And if you don't like it, get out of the way. The more ominous aspect of this situation is that it proceeds - in the U.S. completely and in Britain to a large extent - not only without any criticism but without public awareness about it. I have yet to find a single word in the mainstream media or in other discussion in educated sectors suggesting that it might be a good idea for the U.S. to observe the principles of international domestic law. If this question is ever raised, and that happens only at the margins, it is dismissed as a technicality. It may be a technicality for a criminal state but for others it is not a technicality, any more than a law against homicide is a technicality. This action is in fact a call for a lawless world in which the powerful will rule. The powerful happen to be the United States and Britain, which is by now a pathetic puppy dog that has abandoned any pretence of being an independent state.
