I see on topic means here ignore false claims made. To you the topic is reduced to "arresting" rather than the "jurisdiction, trial, conviction, and arresting" aspects of the ICJ... And Clinton did not have sex with Monica while Monica was having sex with him, right???
On Apr 10, 5:11 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank-you for being on subject Zeb. Arrest is certainly different from > conviction. > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes, I'm sure a European nation would have the balls to "arrest" Bush. > > LOL! Keep dreaming. > > > On Apr 9, 7:09 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The problem is a Spanish conviction is a European conviction. If it is > > found > > > to be a "delito" it is extrdictable from anywhere with a European nation > > > treaty. That would curtail his travel habits. No more pro oil speeches in > > > Calgary. > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Evidently, the feckless Hispanoles care what he does. The question is, > > > > who cares what THEY do? > > > > > On Apr 9, 6:51 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Who cares what he does ? > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I'm sure Bush would be shivering in his boots! LOL! > > > > > > > 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 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 > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
