Mark YOU made the claim the US was the first to openly ignore the UN (now defined as the ICJ)... That fact is false...
You claim now as defense "The ICJ did rule against the US in this case"... But that was NOT YOUR CLAIM... >>> To need to support common knowledge (or even knowledge that pops right up >>> on an intelligently made google search is childish) is like having to tell >>> you what color the sky is... even color blind, and blind people know... >>> what is to explain?? Yes Mark, it does seem foolish to have to explain that your claim the US was the first to ignore the UN or the ICJ when history is clear that is false by a simple google search... You are acting as a typical Leftie here, willing to ignore facts so easily found... Now If you had said Reagan ignored a ICJ Opinion/Judgement in 1986, that would have been factual... Instead your spun lies by saying it was the first openly ignored ICJ opinon/judgement... >>> The question at hand is conviction of (ex) heads of State by competent >>> courts. Ask Milosovich. READ THE THREAD TITLE !!!!!!!!!! The question is does the ICJ have jurisdiction to make such a ruling... That was the opinion of the US and the USSR in 1946 and that was how the ICJ was formed... Reagan in rejecting the ICJ competence and jurisdiction in the matter is exactly France's position in 1974 or Iran's in 1979 and 1951, or Argentina's in 1977, or so many others... You make the assumption that it does, I do not... On Apr 10, 3:03 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Thyat reagan and the US were found guilty on a majority of counts ?? You > MUST be joking. It is soo common knowledge to be laughable that you would > ask. > > It was an 18 Billion dollar damage award. Yes the court avctually awarded > DAMAGES !! Yes, a US magistrate was one of the Judges. (US land mines on > American soil are still being removed.... approx. 6000 to go) > To need to support common knowledge (or even knowledge that pops right up on > an intelligently made google search is childish) is like having to tell you > what color the sky is... even color blind, and blind people know... what is > to explain?? > > The question at hand is conviction of (ex) heads of State by competent > courts. Ask Milosovich. READ THE THREAD TITLE !!!!!!!!!! > > You keep trying to obfuscate by going off on gaar-like tangents... reaching > for some small semi related point that might uphold a different point that > in no way leads back to center. > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In 1977 Argentina rejected an ICJ judgement... Pointing out that > > fact is NOT cherry picking... Your consist redfining your assumptions > > however is... First you said UN, and retraced to ICJ. Now you > > accuse me of cherry picking when I point to a 1977 ICJ ruling which > > Argentina openly ignored... > > >http://www.worldtradelaw.net/articles/dunoffmisfits.pdf > > >http://www.worldtradelaw.net/articles/dunoffmisfits.pdf > > > Go to page 21… > > > Now the problem here is NOT I am required to find more evidence to > > refute Your claim, but YOU are required to provide evidence that your > > claim was true… This is the sort of denial of fact that Little Mikey > > did and then he demanded proof… > > > Honest debate here requires Mark back up his own claims… > > > On Apr 10, 1:03 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Go futher back in the string....... no cherry picking allowed. Follow the > > > entire premise, not that that suits your purpose. There was or was not a > > > court conviction and fine levied against a named nation and head of state > > > ?? That was or was not eronny raygun. he did or did not unilaterally > > > withdraw from a ratified treaty without congressional approval ?? > > > > Now go hunt for another case.... > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:55 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Mark let me remind you of your statement > > > > > >>> the first to openly ignore the UN was indeed, > > > > > Alas, even your attempt to cover-up your mistake ( claiming UN now > > > > means ICJ decisions, which of course requires the UNSC approval for > > > > enforcement) is in error... > > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3879937.stm > > > > > >>> In 1977, Argentina refused to accept a ruling, which gave Chile > > > > possession of islands in the Beagle Channel. Only the intervention of > > the > > > > Pope prevented war. > > > > >http://web.mit.edu/cascon/cases/case_car.html > > > > > I am sure one can find others... > > > > > On Apr 9, 6:45 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > No, but if convicted and a warrant issued it can be exercised in ANY > > > > aduanal > > > > > area. > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Spain is impotent and irrelevant. They're also collossal cowards. > > What > > > > > > will these hispanoles do? Send the Nina and Pinta over here to > > > > > > retrieve Bush and "bring him to justice?" They'd better bring some > > > > > > kick ass paella and sangria with them or we won't even let them > > dock. > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 5:06 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > So China did not ignore a UN Resolution in 1951 by your facts... > > > > That > > > > > > > is good to know, now only if it were true... And that is the > > problem > > > > > > > here... Not unlike the WH insisting Obama did not bow to the > > Saudi > > > > > > > King... > > > > > > > > Now I do not know if it is being Gringo is to accept truth when > > it is > > > > > > > made apparent, If so you are NOT Gringo... Too bad, because that > > is > > > > a > > > > > > > trait all folks could benefit from, be them Europeans, Indians, > > > > > > > Chinese, Africans, Arabs, Latinos, and Gringos... > > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 4:13 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
