Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the cat out
of the bag:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html

LMAO!!!

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the cat
out
of the bag:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html

LMAO!!!



Even if it were true, so what?
The U.S. commits an act of civil disobedience against international law,
as they percieve a higher moral calling rorm a higher moral authority.
As a leftie, you ought be able to dig it!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

The U.S. commits an act of civil disobedience

With bombs, tanks, soldiers, and more bombs. If that's "civil", what's
violent disobedience?

"Sandman" wrote in message

Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the
cat out of the bag:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html

LMAO!!!

The real laugh is that someone would think that any invasion has ever been
legal.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sandman" wrote in message

Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the
cat out of the bag:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html

LMAO!!!

The real laugh is that someone would think that any invasion has ever been
legal.

That shows your ignorance of international law. Invasion in response to a
direct attack is legal. That's what distinguishes Afghanistan from Iraq.
We were directly attacked by Al Queda elements headquartered in Afghanistan
and protected by the Taliban regime. Our invasion of Afghanistan was
therefore, unlike our invasion of Iraq, perfectly lawful under the U.N.
Charter. Further, it was fully sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council,
unlike our completely unprovoked unilateral, and lawless invasion of Iraq
(based, as we all by now know on a ruthless, shameful, and vile pack of
lies).

"Sandman" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sandman" wrote in message

Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the
cat out of the bag:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html

LMAO!!!

The real laugh is that someone would think that any invasion has
ever been legal.

That shows your ignorance of international law.

International law is today a practical fiction, especially as applied to the
US. That you think that so-called international law is binding on sovereign
states shows your naiveté, Sanders. Name a country for which there has been
a functional international war crimes trial, that remained sovereign.

For example, there are a number of international treaties that the US has
not ratified. They can be thought of as being international law for all the
countries that ratified them. The US intentionally did not ratify these
treaties because it did not want to be bound by that particular
international law.

As long as there are multiple sovereign states, there is no such real thing
as international law. The fact that the US flouted the wishes of other
countries in the United Nations is proof that there is no such real thing as
international law. There is in fact only one way that a country has
international law applied to it against its will. It must first lose its
sovereignty, an practical example of which involves losing a war.

Arnii Kroothug proves once again that his hubris and stupidity extend far
beyond the realm of his PCABX crapola which he imagines has something to do
with audio.

What follows is so incredibly dense and inane it's not worth addressing:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sandman" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sandman" wrote in message

Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the
cat out of the bag:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html

LMAO!!!

The real laugh is that someone would think that any invasion has
ever been legal.

That shows your ignorance of international law.

International law is today a practical fiction, especially as applied to
the
US. That you think that so-called international law is binding on
sovereign
states shows your naiveté, Sanders. Name a country for which there has
been
a functional international war crimes trial, that remained sovereign.

For example, there are a number of international treaties that the US has
not ratified. They can be thought of as being international law for all
the
countries that ratified them. The US intentionally did not ratify these
treaties because it did not want to be bound by that particular
international law.

As long as there are multiple sovereign states, there is no such real
thing
as international law. The fact that the US flouted the wishes of other
countries in the United Nations is proof that there is no such real thing
as
international law. There is in fact only one way that a country has
international law applied to it against its will. It must first lose its
sovereignty, an practical example of which involves losing a war.

"Sandman" wrote in message


Arnii Kroothug proves once again that his hubris and stupidity extend
far beyond the realm of his PCABX crapola which he imagines has
something to do with audio.

Is there a time warp in here? Have we all been transported back to middle
school?

What follows is so incredibly dense and inane it's not worth
addressing:

IOW Sanders, you can't overcome the logic and facts that I presented.

BArny Krueger wrote:

International law is today a practical fiction, especially as applied to the
US. That you think that so-called international law is binding on sovereign
states shows your naiveté, Sanders. Name a country for which there has been
a functional international war crimes trial, that remained sovereign.

But how many people have been brought to justice the second they step
outside their borders? It does matter.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
link.net
BArny Krueger wrote:

International law is today a practical fiction, especially as
applied to the US. That you think that so-called international law
is binding on sovereign states shows your naiveté, Sanders. Name a
country for which there has been a functional international war
crimes trial, that remained sovereign.

But how many people have been brought to justice the second they step
outside their borders?

Of course, being outside the sovereign nation that protects you is not a
good thing...

Help me here. I think it's happened once or twice, but I think it is pretty
rare. Name an recent example.

It does matter.

It can, if someone does something arrogant or stupid or both.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sandman" wrote in message

Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets the
cat out of the bag:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html

LMAO!!!

The real laugh is that someone would think that any invasion has ever
been
legal.

That shows your ignorance of international law. Invasion in response to a
direct attack is legal. That's what distinguishes Afghanistan from Iraq.
We were directly attacked by Al Queda elements headquartered in
Afghanistan
and protected by the Taliban regime. Our invasion of Afghanistan was
therefore, unlike our invasion of Iraq, perfectly lawful under the U.N.
Charter. Further, it was fully sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council,
unlike our completely unprovoked unilateral, and lawless invasion of Iraq
(based, as we all by now know on a ruthless, shameful, and vile pack of
lies).

You're full of ****. the same claims that Bush made about Iraq were made by
Clinton.

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sandman" wrote in message

Richard Perle (put a leash on that hounddog!) inadvertently lets
the cat out of the bag:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html

LMAO!!!

The real laugh is that someone would think that any invasion has
ever
been
legal.

That shows your ignorance of international law. Invasion in
response to a direct attack is legal. That's what distinguishes
Afghanistan from Iraq. We were directly attacked by Al Queda
elements headquartered in
Afghanistan
and protected by the Taliban regime. Our invasion of Afghanistan was
therefore, unlike our invasion of Iraq, perfectly lawful under the
U.N. Charter. Further, it was fully sanctioned by the U.N. Security
Council, unlike our completely unprovoked unilateral, and lawless
invasion of Iraq (based, as we all by now know on a ruthless,
shameful, and vile pack of lies).

You're full of ****. the same claims that Bush made about Iraq were
made by Clinton.

Agreed. Ironically, one of the issues that Bush is alleged to have used to
get elected, was his promise to repeal laws the Clinton administration
passed in order to better keep tabs on people from the middle east who are
living in the US.

If you can somehow forget 9/11 (and its quite clear that many flaming
liberals like Sanders have pretty well forgotten it) one could see this as
some kind of a problem.