Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - History Will Not Absolve Us

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

History Will Not Absolve Us
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Dome Vans
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:05 am Post subject:

Quote:

Keep them locked up until the war is over and also hold them responsible for crimes they have committed.

I love this Joo. When is the war going to end???? WHen is a war against an ideology going to be won??? Ok so that means that you can keep them locked up, until they die for crimes that the US will not prove they have done, for a war that neither side is going to win. Just a good excuse for the US to use up some bombs and keep their arms industry going eh! I'm sure bombs have best before dates!

Quote:

The Geneva convention never envisioned AQ

I think basic human rights encompasses everybody, don't think that AQ is anything new.

Quote:

No way. Military courts are fine for AQ

11/9/07. The day that Joo officially lost it. Round and round. Any logic to the argument nope. If I just repeat myself all the time with the same argument, people might just go away and leave me to sleep cosy under my US duvet cover and my George Bush pillow.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:42 am Post subject:

Dome Vans"]

Quote:

Keep them locked up until the war is over and also hold them responsible for crimes they have committed.

Quote:

that is a question in every war isn't it

When Al Qaeida is busted up . Until their infra structure is destroyed.

The US will win cause the US will keep coming up with more powerful stuff and will keep killing their leaders & elites .

It will take time but as I said it will be easier than the cold war.

Quote:

The Geneva convention never envisioned AQ

Quote:

I think basic human rights encompasses everybody, don't think that AQ is anything new.

and of course the US used the illegal combant during WWII.

Quote:

No way. Military courts are fine for AQ

Quote:

You do repeat yourself w/ the same argument but at least in my case it is an argument that you can't deal with.

You mean the US ought to in war time allow AQ to find out hwo the US gets info about them. Cause if they go to trial in the US then the US will have to give that info out. There are 70,000 AQ at least the US court system could never handle them.

It is not just a criminal justice problem it is a national security problem.You have no interest in the well being of the US in fact you hate the US so your demands mean little.

Ayway to speed things up it is time to charge any one who took a shot at a US solider with attempted murder and send them to a military trial.

The_Conservative

Joined: 15 Mar 2007

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject:

keane wrote:

The_Conservative wrote:

Gopher is entitled to his opinion.

Who said he isn't?

Quote:

But one has to wonder...given your screaming denounciation of Gopher in the past, why are you so eager to agree with him...

Can you read? I am eager to agree? Can you not understand when someone is being hung on their own petard?

He denounces something as unjust, but OK? Does that make sense to you? It's unjust, but not illegal. It's unjust, but not immoral. It's unjust but the perpetrators are just good ol' boys meaning no harm who have done nary an illegal thing?

I hold gopher's BS up to the light, nothing more.

Quote:

even if you had to put words in his mouth to do so?

Think for yourself, friend. No words were put in his mouth - or are you claiming he did not say the war is unjust? That is the only thing I quoted him as saying. The rest is a juxtaposition of that and his many defenses of the war and its perpetrators.

Quote:

UN Law is the law of the United States? Since when? The U.S has not signed up to the ICC to list just one example.

You are now disqualified from ever speaking on matters of International Law or the Constitution of the United States.

Criminy Jickets. People talking out their arses... I am just stunned you know so little of the Constitution and the law of the US but run your mouth incessantly on issues that absolutely hinge on having at least a basic understanding of those laws.

My bad, I mean RATIFIED...not that it makes much difference since a signature is NOT binding unless the treaty has been ratified.

Please define UN LAW if you will. I noticed that you left out that part of the post when you quoted me.

Still waiting...

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject:

Friday, August 31, 2007 Redacted, DePalma: Pictures Will End This War Editor and Publisher has a story on a new film directed by Brian Depalma called Redacted. Depalma has made a film documenting the images from the Iraq war which the mainstream media refuse to publish. The images are out there if you know where to look, but the mainstream media will not touch them with a ten foot pole. http://clublefty.blogspot.com/2007/08/redacted-depalma-pictures-will-end-this.html

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:08 am Post subject:

The_Conservative wrote:

Please define UN LAW if you will. I noticed that you left out that part of the post when you quoted me.

Still waiting...

I did not. You are either not bright or not informed enough to realize you have been answered. I will say it again: The UN Charter IS law. It is the law of the land in the US.

Don't get it? Not surprised.

Friend, you are not worthy of my time. You are completely clueless on a fundamental point that colors the entire discussion of Iraq, war crimes, impeachment, etc., so there is absolutely no reason to engage you any further. Not to mention, you aren't engaging, you're sniping.

Waste of time.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:13 am Post subject:

UN was on Saddam's payroll. They have no say cause of that. anyway since the Bathists and the AQ and the Khomnen followers were enaged in a war against the US had a right to do something about them. Futhermore Saddams regime was illegitmate.

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:09 am Post subject:

NEWSFLASH!!!

Saddam was on CIA's payroll starting as early as 1959.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Saddam+CIA+payroll+

Execute him? Hell, for all his loyal service over the years he should have been given a medal Idea

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

UN was on Saddam's payroll. They have no say cause of that.

anyway since the Bathists and the AQ and the Khomnen followers were enaged in a war against the US had a right to do something about them.

Last edited by igotthisguitar on Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:33 am; edited 1 time in total

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:29 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

UN was on Saddam's payroll. They have no say cause of that.

Saddam was on US's payroll. They have no say 'cause of that.

(See how this works?)

Bin Ladin was on US's payroll. They have no say 'cause of that.

(See how this works?)

The_Conservative

Joined: 15 Mar 2007

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject:

keane wrote:

The_Conservative wrote:

Please define UN LAW if you will. I noticed that you left out that part of the post when you quoted me.

Still waiting...

I did not. You are either not bright or not informed enough to realize you have been answered. I will say it again: The UN Charter IS law. It is the law of the land in the US.
e.

Wrong. The UN charter is for an organization of states. It is INTERNATIONAL law not domestic law. It is certainly not the law of the land in the U.S. If you had actually read it you would see that it mostly deals with relationships between sovereign states. The Constitution is the law of the land in the U.S. Simply because there are some clauses in the U.N charter which are similar to those contained in the U.S. Constitution does NOT follow that they are one and the same.

You should refrain from talking about anything pertaining to this topic as it is obvious that you are totally misinformed . Not that that has ever stopped you...

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject:

igotthisguitar wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

UN was on Saddam's payroll. They have no say cause of that.

anyway since the Bathists and the AQ and the Khomnen followers were enaged in a war against the US had a right to do something about them.

The UN was corrupt in this matter so their opinon is out.

anyway fighting the cold war was a good cause.

What was the good cause about taking money from Saddam?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:56 pm Post subject:

keane wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

UN was on Saddam's payroll. They have no say cause of that.

Saddam was on US's payroll. They have no say 'cause of that.

(See how this works?)

Bin Ladin was on US's payroll. They have no say 'cause of that.

(See how this works?)

When was Bin Laden on the US payroll?

Any case the cold war was a just cause protecting Saddam's regime wasn't.

The_Conservative

Joined: 15 Mar 2007

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:13 pm Post subject:

keane wrote:

The_Conservative wrote:

Please define UN LAW if you will. I noticed that you left out that part of the post when you quoted me.

Still waiting...

I did not. You are either not bright or not informed enough to realize you have been answered. I will say it again: The UN Charter IS law. It is the law of the land in the US.

.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that, until the UN Charter was drawn up, that the U.S. had no laws?

Or that the U.S Constitution was replaced by said Charter?

Dome Vans
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject:

Quote:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

*to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

*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,

Quote:

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

This works in conjunction with national law. It doesn't supercede it, but the US has signed it so in that sense it is obligated to follow it. If so then what's the point of signing it, especially with the US's amazing foreign policy at the moment.

Here's Kofi Annan at a photo shoot with the US government.

The_Conservative

Joined: 15 Mar 2007

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:48 pm Post subject:

Dome Vans wrote:

Quote:

Here's Kofi Annan at a photo shoot with the US government.

The point I was making...which you and Keane missed is that there are plenty of governments which have signed the U.N. charter yet do not implement these standards in their own country. Some of the most repressive governments in the world have served on the UN body for human rights.

But back to the U.S. Article 10 states that EVERYONE is entitled to a fair trial...so by your logic the U.S and other nations should go snooping around in other nations judicial systems and force them to have what the U.S considers is a "fair" trial. After all the U.S signed the charter which entitles EVERYONE to a fair trial. And according to keane it is U.S law, so it is manadatory for the U.S. to do so.

Dome Vans
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject:

Nope it works in conjunction with national law.

Conservative said:

Quote:

If you had actually read it you would see that it mostly deals with relationships between sovereign states.

but:

Member Date of admission

Afghanistan 19 November 1946

Iran 24 October 1945

Iraq 21 December 1945

These are by definition sovereign states who are members of the UN.

Quote:

only sovereign states can become UN members, and today all UN members are fully sovereign states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_member_states

Therefore your dealing should follow the UN charter that you signed up to. I understand that the US has it's own national laws but as you said yourself that UN law is between states and the US are bound to this.

It doesn't mean that the US can deal with these people with flagrant disregard of human rights. Especially because the US would have us believe their whiter than white image is a true reflection of them. Rubbish. It's no better than the terrorists you're hoping to rid the world of.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13 Next
Page 12 of 13

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe