This is great.
-
I want to know where Syria got them from. I thought the US only sold them to Iraq ? Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic
-
KaЯl wrote: Is there any nation which didn't have a bad behavior at a moment of its History? Well, no. But, "bad behavior" covers a pretty wide area. Afterall, I could characterize Nazi Germany as guilty of "bad behavior", but you might again say that "is there any nation which didn't have bad behavior at a moment of its history?" (No, I'm not comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany. I'm merely pointing out that the elasticity of your argument can cover pretty much everything.) My point is, what are the factors which guide us to judge the behavior of a Nation? CNN? I don't know. What factors guide us to judge anything from Nazi Germany to serial killers? Who are we to setup courts in the first place, since humankind is never a perfect judge of anything? ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
the Third Reich could be an obvious example, but whatabout Turkey and the armenian genocide? Did it have the same repercussion in the World opinion? but let's try an harder one: what's the difference between Syria and Iraq? Syrya promotes terrorist groups, has probably chemical weapons and is a bloody dictatorship which invaded a part of Lebanon and still occupies it, without counting the aggression wars against Israel. Brit wrote: Who are we to setup courts in the first place, since humankind is never a perfect judge of anything There's now an International Court of Justice. It could be a good idea to begin to use it.
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
-
Trollslayer wrote: What about the chemical, biological and nucelar weapons in Israel, or their violation of UN resolutions ? What resolutions?
For the record, most "anti"-Israel resolutions are non-binding, passed by the general assembly and have outnumbered "anti-Arab resolutions by about 25 to 1. The two key binding resolutions concerning Israel are 242 and 338. 242 was passed following the 1967 war and 338 following the Yom Kippur war in 1973. What critics completely fail to realize is that the resolution applies to ALL parties involved, not just Israel. Article 1 states: 1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
-
the Third Reich could be an obvious example, but whatabout Turkey and the armenian genocide? Did it have the same repercussion in the World opinion? but let's try an harder one: what's the difference between Syria and Iraq? Syrya promotes terrorist groups, has probably chemical weapons and is a bloody dictatorship which invaded a part of Lebanon and still occupies it, without counting the aggression wars against Israel. Brit wrote: Who are we to setup courts in the first place, since humankind is never a perfect judge of anything There's now an International Court of Justice. It could be a good idea to begin to use it.
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
You want to abolish courts and Department of Justice? My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Thomas George wrote: Does he want to start another war? No. There will not be a war in Syria unless they start it or are linked to a terrorist act. There will not be the public support for a war with Syria like there is/was with Iraq. The point of this is a now that we showed how easy it was to disarm Iraq. How hard would it be to disarm Syria? This was a threat to the Syrians to cooperate and nothing more. John
You sound very certain. I am not as certain as you are. Going back a few months, the Iraq situation also started with innocent sounding statements, which many people on CP said was 'posturing'. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
"I think that we believe there are chemical weapons in Syria, for example," Bush said. Does he want to start another war? Also, is the US claiming that they, the Russians, the Chinese etc. don't have chemical weapons, that having chemical weapons became a big issue? AFAIK, whatever their reputation be, Syria has not done a military offensive on a neighbouring country like Iraq did. Anyway, the statement sounds ominous. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
George Bush said: I think that we believe... What is this shit. He can't figure out what he believes? Or he can't figure out if he thinks? Anyways, it does seem like Syria is next on the list. I noticed the propaganda campaign is already starting, just as it did with Iraq a year ago. Give it a year. We'll be back in the Persian Gulf just in time for primaries. Bush will probably invoke some clause that we can't have a presidential election in the middle of a war. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka
Microsoft deliberately adds arbitrary layers of complexity to make it difficult to deliver Windows features on non-Windows platforms--Microsoft's "Halloween files" -
the Third Reich could be an obvious example, but whatabout Turkey and the armenian genocide? Did it have the same repercussion in the World opinion? but let's try an harder one: what's the difference between Syria and Iraq? Syrya promotes terrorist groups, has probably chemical weapons and is a bloody dictatorship which invaded a part of Lebanon and still occupies it, without counting the aggression wars against Israel. Brit wrote: Who are we to setup courts in the first place, since humankind is never a perfect judge of anything There's now an International Court of Justice. It could be a good idea to begin to use it.
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
KaЯl wrote: the Third Reich could be an obvious example, but whatabout Turkey and the armenian genocide? Did it have the same repercussion in the World opinion? but let's try an harder one: what's the difference between Syria and Iraq? Syrya promotes terrorist groups, has probably chemical weapons and is a bloody dictatorship which invaded a part of Lebanon and still occupies it, without counting the aggression wars against Israel. I have not looked into things like the Armenian genocide enough to have a reasonable opinion about it. I'll avoid making any judgement since it would obviously be borne out of ignorance - thus, any opinion I expressed wouldn't be very useful, and it would be bad from the standpoint of argumentation since I could quickly be ambushed. As for Syria: yes, I am aware of the 1980 Hama massacre and other nasty things they've done. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see Syria's invasions as crimes of opportunity. Saddam had some serious drive for power. For example, when he invaded Kuwait, he was planning to follow up with a series of other attacks designed to create a "greater Iraq" (at least that's what Uday Hussein said). Hence, I've seen Saddam as someone who will intentionally rock the boat and conquer for his own glory and megalomania. KaЯl wrote: There's now an International Court of Justice. It could be a good idea to begin to use it. The world is so political that the international criminal courts are suspect. Did you know that Ariel Sharron has been called to appear before the ICC recently? I'm not saying that Ariel Sharron is innocent of the Sabra and Shatila massacres, but it's very much a political hot button. (I have to wonder how hard Arabs were pushing for that.) Further, I have to wonder if Arafat should be called into the ICC, too, for terrorism. But, that's a horrible political mess, too. I'm sure Jews would push for that, and Arabs would reject the "injustice" of the ruling if the ICC found Arafat guilty of anything at all. The second problem is getting the criminals into court in the first place. I'd be unsurprised if some people in Saddam's regime were already indicted by international courts, but if they don't feel like showing up, who's going to make them? Answer: only military power can get them into court (e.g. Milosevic). But, I'm sure you would say that military intervention before court is backwards. Courts work in civil society because we have police officers who are
-
You want to abolish courts and Department of Justice? My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Small correction: Syria sent troops to Lebanon in 1976 with claims of fighting terrorists. Israel invaded southern Lebanon in 1982 whereupon Syria immediately claimed they were assisting Lebanon.
Joe Woodbury wrote: Small correction: Syria sent troops to Lebanon in 1976 with claims of fighting terrorists. Israel invaded southern Lebanon in 1982 whereupon Syria immediately claimed they were assisting Lebanon. Thanks. However, the assisting argument cannot be valid since Israel withdraw.
-
No, I would like to add another court, a supra-national entity which could trial the villains even if they are still in power somewhere.
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
US has already shot it down when it asked for immunity for US citizens. Why would anyone else agree? Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
US has already shot it down when it asked for immunity for US citizens. Why would anyone else agree? Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
A lot of countries already ratified the convention, enough ratifications to allow the Court to exist. Once again, US link themselves with the worst dictatorships to refuse any international control :|
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
-
KaЯl wrote: the Third Reich could be an obvious example, but whatabout Turkey and the armenian genocide? Did it have the same repercussion in the World opinion? but let's try an harder one: what's the difference between Syria and Iraq? Syrya promotes terrorist groups, has probably chemical weapons and is a bloody dictatorship which invaded a part of Lebanon and still occupies it, without counting the aggression wars against Israel. I have not looked into things like the Armenian genocide enough to have a reasonable opinion about it. I'll avoid making any judgement since it would obviously be borne out of ignorance - thus, any opinion I expressed wouldn't be very useful, and it would be bad from the standpoint of argumentation since I could quickly be ambushed. As for Syria: yes, I am aware of the 1980 Hama massacre and other nasty things they've done. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see Syria's invasions as crimes of opportunity. Saddam had some serious drive for power. For example, when he invaded Kuwait, he was planning to follow up with a series of other attacks designed to create a "greater Iraq" (at least that's what Uday Hussein said). Hence, I've seen Saddam as someone who will intentionally rock the boat and conquer for his own glory and megalomania. KaЯl wrote: There's now an International Court of Justice. It could be a good idea to begin to use it. The world is so political that the international criminal courts are suspect. Did you know that Ariel Sharron has been called to appear before the ICC recently? I'm not saying that Ariel Sharron is innocent of the Sabra and Shatila massacres, but it's very much a political hot button. (I have to wonder how hard Arabs were pushing for that.) Further, I have to wonder if Arafat should be called into the ICC, too, for terrorism. But, that's a horrible political mess, too. I'm sure Jews would push for that, and Arabs would reject the "injustice" of the ruling if the ICC found Arafat guilty of anything at all. The second problem is getting the criminals into court in the first place. I'd be unsurprised if some people in Saddam's regime were already indicted by international courts, but if they don't feel like showing up, who's going to make them? Answer: only military power can get them into court (e.g. Milosevic). But, I'm sure you would say that military intervention before court is backwards. Courts work in civil society because we have police officers who are
Brit wrote: For example, when he invaded Kuwait, he was planning to follow up with a series of other attacks designed to create a "greater Iraq" What is doing Syria by occupying Lebanon than trying to relazie their dream of "Great Syria". France "created" Lebanon to "protect" the different religions, especially the Christians. Syria never accepted this separation. They will try to "reunificate" as soon as there will be an opportunity. Brit wrote: The world is so political that the international criminal courts are suspect You can't have Justice without a court. It's one of the foundations of our beliefs in the democracy. Why would it be different at a wider scale? Brit wrote: Answer: only military power can get them into court (e.g. Milosevic) Nutnut. The serbian government sent Milosevitch in the Hague
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
-
US has already shot it down when it asked for immunity for US citizens. Why would anyone else agree? Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: US has already shot it down when it asked for immunity for US citizens. Why would anyone else agree? European nations built their own little "get out of jail free" cards into the ICC, so it's not like the US is doing anything different than the europeans in that particular case. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
-
A lot of countries already ratified the convention, enough ratifications to allow the Court to exist. Once again, US link themselves with the worst dictatorships to refuse any international control :|
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
KaЯl wrote: Once again, US link themselves with the worst dictatorships to refuse any international control You should know that european nations built their own little "get out of jail free" cards into the ICC, so it's not like the US is doing anything different than the europeans in that particular case. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
-
Thomas George wrote: US has already shot it down when it asked for immunity for US citizens. Why would anyone else agree? European nations built their own little "get out of jail free" cards into the ICC, so it's not like the US is doing anything different than the europeans in that particular case. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
I am not saying other countries are better. But, not many contries claim the moral high ground that the US claim for themselves. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Brit wrote: For example, when he invaded Kuwait, he was planning to follow up with a series of other attacks designed to create a "greater Iraq" What is doing Syria by occupying Lebanon than trying to relazie their dream of "Great Syria". France "created" Lebanon to "protect" the different religions, especially the Christians. Syria never accepted this separation. They will try to "reunificate" as soon as there will be an opportunity. Brit wrote: The world is so political that the international criminal courts are suspect You can't have Justice without a court. It's one of the foundations of our beliefs in the democracy. Why would it be different at a wider scale? Brit wrote: Answer: only military power can get them into court (e.g. Milosevic) Nutnut. The serbian government sent Milosevitch in the Hague
But I did emphasie techies who I would imagine are brighter than the average freedom fry eating rednecks - Chris Austin
KaЯl wrote: You can't have Justice without a court. No, you can have justice without a court. It's just that it will be more suspect without one. It's one of the foundations of our beliefs in the democracy. Why would it be different at a wider scale? I already mentioned why the ICC is NOT simply an extension of a national court system. This can easily become a means by which countries can drag hated foreign leaders into court (I mentioned Arafat and Sharron, didn't I?) The end result is that the killers of the premodern world (Osama Bin Ladin, Saddam) won't be dragged into court, the criminals of the modern world will be dragged into court - but only against the will of their host country, because if the host country regarded them as criminals they would prosecute them themselves. I don't really like some of the things that, say, Reagan did, but to drag him into court and not drag in people like Osama Bin Laden (because they can't catch him) shifts the entire balance of power against the developed world. I can't seriously believe that any real justice is being carried out when it is handled in such an unbalanced way. Let me ask you this: if you could setup a court system in France to prosecute terrorism, but it was, for one reason or another, unable to try a single white person - and it was heavily skewed towards prosecuting, say, Algerians, would you agree with it? Its not a question of whether they are guilty or not, it a bias determined by who you can get into court. KaЯl wrote: Answer: only military power can get them into court (e.g. Milosevic) Nutnut. The serbian government sent Milosevitch in the Hague I may have been wrong about that fact. But, that fact becomes irrelavant in the larger discussion because it shows that the international criminal court functioned because the government was willing to turn him over. The other mechanism is a huge military intervention to capture him. Those are the only two mechanisms. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
-
KaЯl wrote: Once again, US link themselves with the worst dictatorships to refuse any international control You should know that european nations built their own little "get out of jail free" cards into the ICC, so it's not like the US is doing anything different than the europeans in that particular case. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
-
I am not saying other countries are better. But, not many contries claim the moral high ground that the US claim for themselves. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: I am not saying other countries are better. But, not many contries claim the moral high ground that the US claim for themselves. Well, that's a shift in your argument, then, because your original statement was that the ICC was irrelevant because the US asked for immunity. I immediately thought, shouldn't you rewrite the words "US" with "US and european" instead of singling out the US for blame? Thomas George wrote: US has already shot it down when it asked for immunity for US citizens. Why would anyone else agree? ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
-
Thomas George wrote: I am not saying other countries are better. But, not many contries claim the moral high ground that the US claim for themselves. Well, that's a shift in your argument, then, because your original statement was that the ICC was irrelevant because the US asked for immunity. I immediately thought, shouldn't you rewrite the words "US" with "US and european" instead of singling out the US for blame? Thomas George wrote: US has already shot it down when it asked for immunity for US citizens. Why would anyone else agree? ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
I think that this is the reason why US gets blamed for so many things. We don't get too many world leaders go about their ethical and moral position - they just go about doing what is in their interest. US also does the same; but pisses off a lot of people with all the BS about their moral position. So, everyone takes them up on it. Is US the only country that installed dictatorships? What about Britain, France etc.? Why does noone ever single them out as much as US? Even with Iraq, despite the fact that the operation had nothing to do with liberation of Iraq that removing a potential threat to US, and increasing free trade in the area, why else was there so much of a rush to get rid of Saddam? Why did the US administration say that "Whether the inspectors find anything is of no onsequence." It just make others go "ok, fine. we are not supporting you for whatever it is worth." This attitude drives a wedge between the people. What did France do wrong? Try to protect their interests in Iraq. The US administration created such a frenzy about it that anything with the name France on it was a taboo. It does not sound like rational behaviour. There is more chance of any chemical or biological weapons that Saddam may have had to leak into terrorist groups now. If that happens, who would take responsibility for it? IMO, the attitude of US administration is a big bottleneck in achieving any kind of a equitable world order. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
I think that this is the reason why US gets blamed for so many things. We don't get too many world leaders go about their ethical and moral position - they just go about doing what is in their interest. US also does the same; but pisses off a lot of people with all the BS about their moral position. So, everyone takes them up on it. Is US the only country that installed dictatorships? What about Britain, France etc.? Why does noone ever single them out as much as US? Even with Iraq, despite the fact that the operation had nothing to do with liberation of Iraq that removing a potential threat to US, and increasing free trade in the area, why else was there so much of a rush to get rid of Saddam? Why did the US administration say that "Whether the inspectors find anything is of no onsequence." It just make others go "ok, fine. we are not supporting you for whatever it is worth." This attitude drives a wedge between the people. What did France do wrong? Try to protect their interests in Iraq. The US administration created such a frenzy about it that anything with the name France on it was a taboo. It does not sound like rational behaviour. There is more chance of any chemical or biological weapons that Saddam may have had to leak into terrorist groups now. If that happens, who would take responsibility for it? IMO, the attitude of US administration is a big bottleneck in achieving any kind of a equitable world order. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: IMO, the attitude of US administration is a big bottleneck in achieving any kind of a equitable world order. (nod) I think it is the attitude of [insert whoever is the leading power at the time] which is a big bottleneck in achieving any kind of a equitable world order*. This is because the leading power has the least to gain from a legal balance. That sounds selfish, but then, the lesser powers are pushing for equality because they have so much to gain from it (which, again, may come off as selfish). Personally, I can agree more with the lesser powers. I think that equality as a virtue comes from the non-elite because they know what inequality is like. * Example: England was against maritime laws at the height of its power; whereas, the US, a lesser power at the time, pushed for them. As for the ICC, I think europe should pursue it - even with the exemptions for US citizens. My main reservations about the ICC is that it will be unbalanced, used as a tool to settle political grudges, and will be seen as biased even when it isn't. But, if the ICC goes well, then a lot will be accomplished to prove that it can work. But, for the US to join the ICC, and then if it becomes a big slug-fest for everyone to push their agendas, the US will be left with a stark choice: (1) remain in the ICC and weather all the problems, or (2) withdraw from the ICC and come off looking like it withdrew because it was guilty of so much criminal behavior that it didn't want to "play" anymore. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion