Predictable response

[CC]

Will be what will follow by some members of the group to this:

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9607
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=9606
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=9609

Why bother you ask? There might be a few folks out there who wished for
a new source of information but didn't know this one existed.

Oh BTW, what will also be predictable is the assumption that this is
"liberal thinking". Incorrect of course, as the web site referenced,
and most of the writers are more right-wing than anything a modern
Republican could comprehend. And anyone coming from a true conservative
right-wing perspective can clearly identify the so-called "Republicans"
as statist liberals of the most treacherous sort. Only the Republicans
are the ones confused about their identity.


Good day!

 

[Jim Thompson]

Will be what will follow by some members of the group to this:

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9607
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=9606
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=9609

Why bother you ask? There might be a few folks out there who wished for
a new source of information but didn't know this one existed.

Oh BTW, what will also be predictable is the assumption that this is
"liberal thinking". Incorrect of course, as the web site referenced,
and most of the writers are more right-wing than anything a modern
Republican could comprehend. And anyone coming from a true conservative
right-wing perspective can clearly identify the so-called "Republicans"
as statist liberals of the most treacherous sort. Only the Republicans
are the ones confused about their identity.


Good day!

Nope. You are the confused one, Chris. Half an engineer struggling
to understand the most trivial of concepts.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Jim Thompson]

Nope. You are the confused one, Chris. Half an engineer struggling
to understand the most trivial of concepts.

...Jim Thompson

Another Mike Monett ?

...Jim Thompson

 

[me]

Will be what will follow by some members of the group to this:

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9607
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=9606
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=9609

Why bother you ask? There might be a few folks out there who wished for
a new source of information but didn't know this one existed.

no loss there.

Oh BTW, what will also be predictable is the assumption that this is
"liberal thinking".

no, just stupid.

Incorrect of course, as the web site referenced,
and most of the writers are more right-wing than anything a modern
Republican could comprehend. And anyone coming from a true conservative
right-wing perspective can clearly identify the so-called "Republicans"
as statist liberals of the most treacherous sort. Only the Republicans
are the ones confused about their identity.


Good day!

Help Iran, send them nukes now, ballistic air express...

 

[krw]

Another Mike Monett ?

Nope. Another Rich_the_drunk_asshole.

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

no loss there.

no, just stupid.

Typical Bushist - when presented with facts that show you to be in the
wrong, you name-call.

I have yet to see a Bushist use any modicum of sense.

Ho, hum.
Rich

 

[Reg Edwards]

Typical Bushist - when presented with facts that show you to be in the
wrong, you name-call.

===================================
Over here, in the UK, Bushists are calle Blairites.

 

[John Larkin]

Will be what will follow by some members of the group to this:

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9607

Silly drivel. What constitutes "nation" and "soverignty"? A chunk of
land ruled by a madman?

John

 

[CC]

Silly drivel. What constitutes "nation" and "soverignty"? A chunk of
land ruled by a madman?

Ah, well finally someone's willing to discuss the articles like a civil
human being.

Those are interesting questions. What is your view on what constitutes
a soverein nation? A particular form of government that you approve of
or as recognized by an international institution of member states such
as the UN, or some other definition?



Good day!

 

[[email protected]]

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9607

The article makes the mistake of putting all of these other countries
on a par. The question, really, is whether to let folks who say they
want to kill you have nuclear weapons.

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=9606

"However, in the aftermath of Bush's War of Aggression against Iraq
in 1991, "

Gee, that sounds a bit daft, doesn't it?

http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=9609

Why bother you ask? There might be a few folks out there who wished for
a new source of information but didn't know this one existed.

Oh BTW, what will also be predictable is the assumption that this is
"liberal thinking".

Labels aren't important; antiwar.com just seems a bit lost. Sure,
war's nasty. But we're in one. Or two.

So the discussion ought to be "Where do we go from here?" not "I'm
unhappy."

Cheers (really!)
James

 

[John Larkin]

Ah, well finally someone's willing to discuss the articles like a civil
human being.

Those are interesting questions. What is your view on what constitutes
a soverein nation? A particular form of government that you approve of
or as recognized by an international institution of member states such
as the UN, or some other definition?

As a minimum, the governmant has to be by popular consent. A group of
thugs can't reasonably speak for the population.

John

 

[Ken Smith]

As a minimum, the governmant has to be by popular consent. A group of
thugs can't reasonably speak for the population.

What percentage of the population agreeing is "popular concent"? You'll
never get 100% agreement. You also need to define "concent" and what
evidence you will use. In several countries, the people currently in
power have less than 50% support from the people does this disqualify
them?

 

[John Larkin]

What percentage of the population agreeing is "popular concent"? You'll
never get 100% agreement. You also need to define "concent" and what
evidence you will use. In several countries, the people currently in
power have less than 50% support from the people does this disqualify
them?

There's not a lot of point playing with definitions. The real question
is whether "the international community" believes in some basic human
rights, and then is willing to do something about it. So does
"disqualify" have teeth?

John

 

[Homer J Simpson]

As a minimum, the governmant has to be by popular consent. A group of
thugs can't reasonably speak for the population.

China. N Vietnam. Iran, Iraq. In fact too many to list.

 

[David Brown]

There's not a lot of point playing with definitions. The real question
is whether "the international community" believes in some basic human
rights, and then is willing to do something about it. So does
"disqualify" have teeth?

The international community believes in a fair number of basic human
rights. If a country does not believe in them, are the not a "sovereign
nation" by your definition? What if they say they believe in them, but
don't follow through in practice? What if they practice some but not
others? Or if they apply these rights to some people, but not others?

 

[John Larkin]

China. N Vietnam. Iran, Iraq. In fact too many to list.

And too many who have votes, and even veto power, in the UN.

John

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

There's not a lot of point playing with definitions. The real question
is whether "the international community" believes in some basic human
rights, and then is willing to do something about it. So does
"disqualify" have teeth?

John

See 'China' for references.
Nations exist because their neighbours cannot destroy them or absorb
them. Tibet is no longer a nation.

 

[[email protected]]

John Larkin wrote:

See 'China' for references.
Nations exist because their neighbours cannot destroy them or absorb
them. Tibet is no longer a nation.

That doesn't explain Mexico, or Canada. And they are the 1rst and
2nd leading sources of oil imported into the country sandwiched between
them, so they'd be mighty tempting, yes?

Maybe ... their neighbor ... is not so bad?

Grins,
James Arthur

 

[Homer J Simpson]

That doesn't explain Mexico, or Canada. And they are the 1rst and
2nd leading sources of oil imported into the country sandwiched between
them, so they'd be mighty tempting, yes?

Maybe ... their neighbor ... is not so bad?

If the US ever tries to invade Canada we'll just change all the signs to say
Welcome to Mexico. They'll never figure it out.

 

[[email protected]]

If the US ever tries to invade Canada we'll just change all the signs to say
Welcome to Mexico. They'll never figure it out.

Doh!

;-)

James