All told, Reagan did noy ignore a UN resolution but a conviction and fine. There is a great difference. I guess that is lost on you and it up holds my position... I do not make assumptions without identifying them as such. That would be a Gringo failing.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Simply because I am not. > > Unless 1959 is prior to 1981 you are in error... > > >>> Your need to have things spelled out letter for letter and obvious > lack of insight into a situation as a whole is not my shortcoming. > > Your refusal to explicitly state assumptions, not atypical for LW > demagoguery, IS your shortcoming in a honest, civil, and transparent > debate... That is often done to insure circular logic to ensure your > prejudices become the conclusions... It is often also the reason > the LW cna NOT accept the reality of the GOOD Bush did in Iraq... > > >>> but only one side has held itself up as the fortress of freedom, the > land of liberty and free thought > > More BS... A better statement is that those opposing America and > Human Rights demand perfection from America while ignoring or excusing > away worst conduct in others... Why??? Then they do not have to > insist the really bad abusers do anything about human rights??? How > do you advance Human Rights - by demanding perfection from a few, or > by getting the worst abusers to change??? Frankly it the latter > which produces greater results... > > The UN Human Rights Body is an example... Or take the issue of > transAtlantic slavery in the 1600's to 1850... Who received most of > the slaves??? Do you know??? The US by and by treated their slaves > far better than the Caribbean or Brazil.... Is Cuba, Haiti, or > Brazil asked for reparations??? Or Saudi Arabia or Iran (both who > engaged in slavery in the 1900's... > > >>> I am here to debate, not instruct. None of my facts are incorrect and > my position is formed after a career of 27 years of first hand on site > observation with bullets flying and who is who and backed by who in the > field known. > > Debates require STATED assumptions... Second your fact that the US > under Reagan was the first to openly ignore a UN Resolution is clearly > false... So yes your facts ARE QUESTIONABLE... Sorry to disabuse > you of this... > > On Apr 9, 3:02 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why is it you can not admit you were in factual error instead of > > seeking to justify BS by jumping on the US??? > > > > Simply because I am not. Your need to have things spelled out letter for > > letter and obvious lack of insight into a situation as a whole is not my > > shortcoming. > > > > There have absolutely been wrongs on all sides that nis unquestionable... > > but only one side has held itself up as the fortress of freedom, the land > of > > liberty and free thought, the supposed shining example which they export > by > > force of arms (covert or overt) if you disagree. That is the US. No > > government has ever been so hypocritical and no people so blinded by > > misinformation as the US. > > > > No, I do not have a "hard on" for the US as a whole, just it time and > time > > again failed policy to forcefully indoctrinate the world regardless of > their > > culture and tradition. \ > > > > I am here to debate, not instruct. None of my facts are incorrect and my > > position is formed after a career of 27 years of first hand on site > > observation with bullets flying and who is who and backed by who in the > > field known. You get yours from where ?? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Mark, the question here is your claimed fact that the US was the first > > > to publicly ignore an UN Resolution... On that your are in > > > error.... > > > > > Now you expose your unmentioned predict "The US proclaims itself as a > > > shinning example of morality, while China does not, so China does not > > > count"... What hogwash... The fact here is the US is by and large > > > far more "moral" in it dealings with the world in the rough and tumble > > > arena of geopolitical Real Politiks... Now that does not say the US > > > is perfect. If it far from it... Yet it is head and shoulders > > > better than China in the main. > > > > > In the main, this line of reasoning seeks to condemn the US for > > > everything while excusing away the same or worse behavior in other > > > world or regional powers as Russia, China, France, Iran... And that > > > is what little mikey used to do more crudely than you.... > > > > > Here is an example of Russia being "immoral" if you were honest enough > > > to apply the same standards to Russia as you demand from the US... > > > Equality between nation state, as you demand, also demands equal > > > standards in judging them... > > > > > >>> So, in the end you did indeed twist the words to suit your own ends > and > > > continue to do so. > > > > > Why is it you can not admit you were in factual error instead of > > > seeking to justify BS by jumping on the US??? > > > > > On Apr 9, 10:56 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sorry but you are wrong. Why is it you see NO difference in publicly > > > > espousing to the world the moral right of your cause and presenting > your > > > > nation as the shining example of all that is right and good in the > world > > > and > > > > China who has never claimed to do anything but protect and expand its > > > sphere > > > > of influence ??? > > > > > > Why is it you have a population screaming for more Nuclear power > plants > > > for > > > > production of electricity when that same population wants to deny > that > > > same > > > > right to other equally Sovereign states ?? Is fear they may do that > > > > which you already have ?? > > > > > > Why is it the US can try to invoke the Monroe Doctrine (they are the > only > > > > signators to this self protecting ideal) yet when nations with EQUAL > > > rights > > > > to do so elsewhere do just that the US cries most foul ?? > > > > > > Just what is it that gives you (US) the "right" to intervene and > negates > > > > that "right" for others on issues they find most offensive ?? > > > > > > So, in the end you did indeed twist the words to suit your own ends > and > > > > continue to do so. > > > > > > Why ?? > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:17 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > The second point here is Mark I did NOT twist your words... I > claimed > > > > > your facts were wrong... You claim that I twisted your words when > you > > > > > facts were clearly wrong is in fact twisting MY words... > > > > > > > Mark ask "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who twists the words" > > > > > > > Subservient mirror "Not you" who was thinking "of course it's you > > > > > bub"... > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 5:12 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > If you want to quote me do so correctly. It is NOT difficult... > > > unlees > > > > > your > > > > > > point needs to twist the words in order to be made. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:21 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The first to ignore the UN??? Many did so pre 1980... Shall > we > > > list > > > > > > > them, even European nations??? > > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 2:09 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > If I'm not mistaken the US does not consider six men (Che > had > > > > > resigned > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > ALL Cuban service) talking politics and basicallly starving > in > > > the > > > > > > > outback > > > > > > > > to be a reasonable threat... in this case there is no point > to be > > > > > made by > > > > > > > > you. As far as some of the other excursions made by Cuba > during > > > their > > > > > > > > "foreign travels", those soldiers were on loan to the Soviet > > > bloc.... > > > > > Is > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > US responsible for UN actions ?? > > > > > > > > > > And as far as deserving to be convicted... what difference > does > > > it > > > > > > > make... > > > > > > > > the first to openly ignore the UN was indeed, you guessed it, > the > > > US > > > > > > > under > > > > > > > > Raygun Ronnie, when he unilaterally pulled the US from the > ICJ > > > > > > > jurisdiction > > > > > > > > AFTER being convicted and an 18 billion dollar (still unpaid) > > > verdict > > > > > > > > was rendered for war crimes............ > > > > > > > > > > How soon the right points fingers forgetting they paved the > way. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:36 AM, dick thompson < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > What a contortionist you libs are. You think Castro was > > > invited > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > Bolivia when he sent Che there? You think he was invited > when > > > he > > > > > sent > > > > > > > his > > > > > > > > > people to the other countries? > > > > > > > > > > > THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Should they ??? No. He has not made a single overt or > covert > > > move > > > > > > > > > outside his borders that did not include an invitation of > > > another > > > > > (the > > > > > > > > > affected) sitting sovereign government. That would be the > US > > > method > > > > > > > > > and why the Spanish feel they have a right to act. > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 10:42 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> > < > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > You didn't answer my question. Should the US courts indict > > > Castro? > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > he then showed up in NYC to speak at the UN he could then > be > > > > > arrested. > > > > > > > > > Do you support that? > > > > > > > > > > > THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > They have the right to reach internationally on affairs > they > > > think > > > > > > > > > affect or affected their interests in any way. > > > > > > > > > > > Gee, the US does just that as well. > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 8:33 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> > < > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So then you would be with the program if the US courts put > out > > > an > > > > > > > > > indictment against Castro or Mugabe or Putin? That would > be > > > just > > > > > > > > > hunky-dory with you? > > > > > > > > > > > There was a reason that Saddam was tried in the Iraqi > courts, > > > not > > > > > the > > > > > > > US > > > > > > > > > courts and that reason was the legal one that the Iraqis > were > > > > > setting > > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > > a Republic and had jurisdiction. > > > > > > > > > > > How on earth does Spain have any jurisdiction over the US > > > > > officials in > > > > > > > > > any way, shape or form. In fact how did they have any > > > jurisdiction > > > > > > > over > > > > > > > > > Pinochet for that matter. This is little men playing games > and > > > > > trying > > > > > > > > > to act as if they were big men - just like this rookie > > > president we > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > stuck with now. > > > > > > > > > > > THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Someone has to. > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 8:31 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> > < > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > http://online.wsj.com/video/spanish-court-weighs-charges-against-form. > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > > > > -- > > > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > > -- > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
