Mark look at the dates, the one you did NOT quote was many months prior to one you did... So yeah you cherry picked
On Apr 10, 5:14 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > So now pointedly answering your post with your words that prove you wrong is > Cherry Picking ?? > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:12 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Please, stop cherry picking > > > 985 Jan 18 > > President Reagan declared that the U.S. would not take part in > > the > > World Court ruling on Nicaraguan charges. > > Links: Nicaragua, USA, World Court, ReaganR Click to see the > > source > > (s) for this event > > > On Apr 10, 4:55 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > read your own dates and try to order them oldest to newest: > > > > 1985 Oct 7 > > > The United States announced it would no longer automatically > > comply > > > with World Court decisions. This was in response to a June 25, 1985, > > > World Court ruling that U.S. involvement in Nicaragua violated > > > international law. The ruling stemmed from a suit brought in April > > > 1984 after revelations that the CIA had directed the mining of > > > Nicaraguan ports. The U.S. later vetoed two U.N. resolutions calling > > > for compliance to the World Court ruling. > > > Links: Nicaragua, USA, UN, CIA, World Court Click to see the source > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:50 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 5th paragraph from the bottom > > > > > >>> 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............ > > > > > Reagan took the same stance as France did in 1974 -- that is refused > > > > to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ... He did so in 1985 BEFORE > > > > the ICJ made any ruling... In your statement your state or infer > > > > Reagan was the first to openly ignore the ICJ (false) and that Reagan > > > > did so After the Judgment (again false)... The facts you DID not > > > > include were Iranian open rejection of the ICJ Judgment in 1980... > > > > > You are NOT ENTITLED to your FACTS when they are false... > > > > >http://timelinesdb.com/listevents.php?subjid=537&title=World%20Court > > > > > 1980 May 24 > > > > Iran rejected a call by the World Court in The Hague to release > > the > > > > American hostages. > > > > Links: Netherlands, Iran, World Court Click to see the source(s) > > > > for this event > > > > > 1985 Jan 18 > > > > President Reagan declared that the U.S. would not take part in > > the > > > > World Court ruling on Nicaraguan charges. > > > > Links: Nicaragua, USA, World Court, ReaganR Click to see the source > > > > (s) for this event > > > > > 1985 Oct 7 > > > > The United States announced it would no longer automatically > > comply > > > > with World Court decisions. This was in response to a June 25, 1985, > > > > World Court ruling that U.S. involvement in Nicaragua violated > > > > international law. The ruling stemmed from a suit brought in April > > > > 1984 after revelations that the CIA had directed the mining of > > > > Nicaraguan ports. The U.S. later vetoed two U.N. resolutions calling > > > > for compliance to the World Court ruling. > > > > Links: Nicaragua, USA, UN, CIA, World Court Click to see the source > > > > (s) for this event > > > > > 1986 Jun 27 > > > > World Court ruled that US aid to Nicaraguan contras was illegal. > > > > Links: Nicaragua, USA, World Court Click to see the source(s) for > > > > this event > > > > > On Apr 10, 4:26 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Response one: > > > > > > Someone has to. > > > > > > TWO: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > THREE: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > FOUR: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I see NO waffling in any of my very direct answers to direct and ON > > TOPIC > > > > > (unlike yours) questions. > > > > > > And up until and including that reply we were discussing heads of > > state > > > > and > > > > > he mistakenly threw Che into the mix... I reminded him Che was not > > part > > > > of > > > > > the Cuban Gov. when in Bolivia etc. > > > > > > You then started on ENTITIES, not people pulling a Gaar and trying > > your > > > > best > > > > > to make it suit some imagined topic that was simply NOT being > > discussed > > > > > regardless of your interpretation. > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:15 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Mark reread the thread.... Dick asked you if effect does the Us > > have > > > > > > the right to "try" a foreign leader and then issue an arrest > > > > > > warrant... To this question you did an Obama and refused to > > answer > > > > > > directly... And that is the core topic of this thread... In one > > > > > > post, in making a point, you added a false fact that > > > > > > > >>> the first to openly ignore the UN > > > > > > > which you altered after the fact to in effect > > > > > > > >>> the first to openly ignore a ICJ judgment > > > > > > > Now I show even that anti-American dig is plainly false what do you > > > > > > do??? You claim if effect any comment about your false your dig > > is > > > > > > NOT part of this thread, so any disabusing of your "off-topic" > > > > > > statement is now out of bounds... Egads man, do you have no > > > > > > shame??? If the "the US was first to do it" was off topic, why > > did > > > > > > you YOU TYPE IT? If however it was part of a valid reply that was > > on > > > > > > topic, then questioning your claimed facts IS ON TOPIC... > > > > > > > You are seeking to have your insult and deny my claim of you > > claiming > > > > > > false facts all at the same time... Was you insult on topic??? > > If > > > > > > yes, admit your claim was false, if not apologize for being off > > > > > > topic... Very simple really. After all, we are here for honest, > > > > > > open and civil debate here are we not??? > > > > > > > On Apr 10, 3:30 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > again gaar, you sidestep the original issue. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM, plainolamerican > > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > ouch!!! > > > > > > > > > On Apr 10, 2:09 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Further examples as I twist the knife into your false claim's > > > > back... > > > > > > > > > Openly ignoring ICJ judgements is relatively common starting > > from > > > > > > > > > 1951.... > > > > > > > > > > Non-Compliance with the International Court of Justice > > > > > > > > > > Andrew Srulevitch > > > > > > > > > Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish > > Organizations > > > > > > > > > July 8, 2004 > > > > > > > > > > Tomorrow the International Court of Justice will issue its > > > > > > non-binding > > > > > > > > > advisory opinion on Israel’s Security Fence. How might > > Israel > > > > react > > > > > > > > > to an adverse decision? Detonate a nuclear device? Attack > > the > > > > > > > > > enemy? Send 350,000 civilians into the disputed territory? > > > > > > > > > > So responded France, Iceland and Morocco, respectively, to > > ICJ > > > > > > > > > decisions against them. Ignoring the ICJ ruling would not be > > > > > > original > > > > > > > > > either. The United States, Albania, Argentina, > > Guinea-Bissau, > > > > Iran, > > > > > > > > > Malaysia, Nigeria, Romania, South Africa and Thailand have > > all > > > > > > > > > followed that path. > > > > > > > > > > If Israel does not accept the ICJ’s conclusions, Palestinians > > and > > > > > > > > > their supporters will argue that the Security Council should > > > > enact > > > > > > > > > sanctions against Israel, as it did against apartheid South > > > > Africa. > > > > > > > > > Lawyers for the Palestinians made this argument explicitly in > > > > their > > > > > > > > > oral presentation to the court: > > > > > > > > > > This is a classic case in the light of the opinion issued by > > the > > > > > > Court > > > > > > > > > in the Namibia case. As a result of the serious breaches of > > > > > > > > > international law by the State of Israel, other states are > > > > obliged to > > > > > > > > > co-operate with one another and with the United Nations and > > other > > > > > > > > > competent international organizations, in order to put a stop > > to > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > violations; not to recognize the unlawful situations arising > > from > > > > > > > > > these > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
