Rogue State

[jukita]

The Bush administration has outlined the following
criteria for a "dangerous state":

1. It has or plans to acquire, weapons of mass
destruction.

2. It ignores United Nations directives.

3. It unilaterally abrogates international treaties.

4. It invades weaker countries without just cause.

5. It has an unelected government, or one that acquires
power by dubious means such as rigged elections.


When can we expect "Operation American Freedom"?

[Jeffrey Smidt]

jukita > wrote in message news:<D_tOa.575

Ah, Troll, weak, weak, weak....

> 1. It has or plans to acquire, weapons of mass
> destruction.

The criteria applies not as state above, but to rouge nations that are
in material breach of international nuclear non proliferation
treaties. Iraq was, US isn't

> 2. It ignores United Nations directives.

Iraq was in violation of virtually every UN directive, America is not
and wasn't. Despite 12 years of attempting to work with the Disunited
Nations to solve the Iraqi crisis, the US did not violate any UN
directives in applying the 'serious consequences' implied in previous
resolutions.
>
> 3. It unilaterally abrogates international treaties.

US abrogated no binding treaty. Voluntery withdrawl is the right of
all soverign nations, such as the US could withdraw from the Disunited
Nations and let it die, and would violate no international 'law'

> 4. It invades weaker countries without just cause.

'Just cause' is in the eye of the beholder.... For example the Iragi
children released from torture....
>
> 5. It has an unelected government, or one that acquires
> power by dubious means such as rigged elections.

Hmmm, 'dubious' means.... You mean in accordance with duly enacted
election law established by legislative action? Or do you mean the
unconstitional attempt by the Gore campaign to have judicial fiat
overturn the election process? Legislatures make laws, judiciaries
shall not. Otherwise you wind up with lifetime appointed 'wise old
men' running the country, you know like the Soviet politburo? The
Florida courts overstepped their constitutional authority, both
Floridan and US. The Supreme court did not 'select' Bush, the forbade
the Florida courts from an unconstitutional act.


> When can we expect "Operation American Freedom"?

When ever enough peon's get enough balls (and battleships - you know,
naval content) to try it.

Now go back to bed, Troll

[Spread Eagle]

jukita > wrote in message >...

> The Bush administration has outlined the following
> criteria for a "dangerous state":
>
> 1. It has or plans to acquire, weapons of mass
> destruction.

The US invented WMDs.


> 2. It ignores United Nations directives.

The US invented, funds, and houses the UN.


> 3. It unilaterally abrogates international treaties.

The are no international treaties unless the US decides there will be
international treaties.


> 4. It invades weaker countries without just cause.

All countries on the planet, alone or collectively, are weaker than
the US.


> 5. It has an unelected government, or one that acquires
> power by dubious means such as rigged elections.

The US Supreme Court, duly constituted, and the final arbiter under
the US Constitution, made it's order. You don't like it? Get over
it.

> When can we expect "Operation American Freedom"?

Don't need it. But Canada, France, and Germany are cruising for big
time regime changes and the resulting liberation.

Spread Eagle

[Alan Lothian]

In article >, Spread
Eagle > wrote:

<Oh, dear, and I really *do* know better than to get into these big,
woolly OT threads. But this clown is just too much.... Takes deep
breath....>

> jukita > wrote in message
> >...
>
> > The Bush administration has outlined the following
> > criteria for a "dangerous state":
> >
> > 1. It has or plans to acquire, weapons of mass
> > destruction.
>
> The US invented WMDs.

Hmm. Yes, but. Note that nukes follow a pattern of fear.
The US (with more than a little help from the Brits) built the first
nuclear weapon *for fear that the Nazis might have got one first.*.
The USSR built a nuclear weapon *for fear of the US WMD*
The Brits built a nuclear weapon *for fear of the USSR WMD, and not
trusting the US to risk its national existence defending the Brits*
etc etc etc right down the line. I don't mind admitting that had I been
Saddam, I'd have been building a nuke myself, and for good reason.

>
> > 2. It ignores United Nations directives.
>
> The US invented, funds, and houses the UN.

Not all on its own, alas. Some of us (re invention) on this side of the
Atlantic have to take our share of the blame. And no, you don't "fund"
the UN; generally speaking, you are very remiss on your subscription.
>
> > 3. It unilaterally abrogates international treaties.
>
> The are no international treaties unless the US decides there will be
> international treaties.

I'd re-read that, and rephrase it, if I were you. As flatly stated
above, that really is the sort of thing that gets the US a bad name.

>
> > 4. It invades weaker countries without just cause.
>
> All countries on the planet, alone or collectively, are weaker than
> the US.

So? Note that this will not necessarily always be the case. See my
comment above, re international treaties. You make your country
(fortunately, I have a better acquaintance with the US than an
encounter with a swaggering oaf on UseNet) sound like the homeland of
overweight, pernicious vermin in great need of removal from the face of
God's green Earth. You should be ashamed of yourself, and cease to
insult by your poisonous flatulence the far, far better people who
created your nation and made it great.


>
> > 5. It has an unelected government, or one that acquires
> > power by dubious means such as rigged elections.
>
> The US Supreme Court, duly constituted, and the final arbiter under
> the US Constitution, made it's order. You don't like it? Get over
> it.
>
> > When can we expect "Operation American Freedom"?
>
> Don't need it. But Canada, France, and Germany are cruising for big
> time regime changes and the resulting liberation.

Have you even the faintest idea how silly, ignorant, arrogant and
frightening that sort of total bull**** sounds to non-Americans? If
not, why not? You might like to consider the idea that many ot today's
supposed "anti-Americans" did not start off as "anti-Americans."

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

[Cecil Turner]

Alan Lothian wrote:

> > The US invented, funds, and houses the UN.
>
> Not all on its own, alas. Some of us (re invention) on this side of the
> Atlantic have to take our share of the blame. And no, you don't "fund"
> the UN; generally speaking, you are very remiss on your subscription.

Yes, but the US is most blameworthy on the subject. As far as funding goes, the US
provides ~22% of regular budget and 27% of peacekeeping. And the dues in arrears were
the result of holding back the 3% in dispute when the first number went from 25 to 22%.
AFAIK the US never provided less than 22%, which is of course more than any other nation
(and far more than anyone besides Japan). I don't believe there are any arrears at this
point, other than possibly the perennial ones as the result of budget cycles not being
coincident. Contrast that to the list of countries that haven't paid dues in two years
on the UN website, and it appears to be not much of an issue.

rgds,
KTF

[Alan Lothian]

In article >, Cecil Turner
> wrote:

> Alan Lothian wrote:
>
> > > The US invented, funds, and houses the UN.
> >
> > Not all on its own, alas. Some of us (re invention) on this side of the
> > Atlantic have to take our share of the blame. And no, you don't "fund"
> > the UN; generally speaking, you are very remiss on your subscription.
>
> Yes, but the US is most blameworthy on the subject. As far as funding goes,
> the US
> provides ~22% of regular budget and 27% of peacekeeping. And the dues in
> arrears were
> the result of holding back the 3% in dispute when the first number went from
> 25 to 22%.
> AFAIK the US never provided less than 22%, which is of course more than any
> other nation
> (and far more than anyone besides Japan). I don't believe there are any
> arrears at this
> point, other than possibly the perennial ones as the result of budget cycles
> not being
> coincident. Contrast that to the list of countries that haven't paid dues in
> two years
> on the UN website, and it appears to be not much of an issue.
>

This is all pretty well true; if there are nitpicks, I will let other
people get on with them. Even in my most euroextreme mode (I know
where I left it, I'll find it in a minute) I can't blame the Murrikans
for everything.

But... (whimpers and squeaks) having just pinned my heart to my sleeve
answering some dreadful Gringo troll on an off-topic, flamebait thread,
I was looking for just the tiniest bit of support from the other side
of the Atlantic. Typical Brit, eh?

OK, by UseNet standards I am big and ugly enough to look after myself,
but...

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

[anyman]

get a life

"jukita" > wrote in message
...
> The Bush administration has outlined the following
> criteria for a "dangerous state":
>
> 1. It has or plans to acquire, weapons of mass
> destruction.
>
> 2. It ignores United Nations directives.
>
> 3. It unilaterally abrogates international treaties.
>
> 4. It invades weaker countries without just cause.
>
> 5. It has an unelected government, or one that acquires
> power by dubious means such as rigged elections.
>
>
> When can we expect "Operation American Freedom"?
>

[Fred J. McCall]

Alan Lothian > wrote:

:Not all on its own, alas. Some of us (re invention) on this side of the
:Atlantic have to take our share of the blame. And no, you don't "fund"
:the UN; generally speaking, you are very remiss on your subscription.

And you are very out of date with this complaint.

:> Don't need it. But Canada, France, and Germany are cruising for big
:> time regime changes and the resulting liberation.
:
:Have you even the faintest idea how silly, ignorant, arrogant and
:frightening that sort of total bull**** sounds to non-Americans? If
:not, why not? You might like to consider the idea that many ot today's
:supposed "anti-Americans" did not start off as "anti-Americans."

Uh, he's doing it on purpose, Alan. I'm afraid the fact that you are
taking it as if he is serious says much more about your misconceptions
about us than about our misconceptions about anything at all.

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

[Dave Holford]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
>
> Dave Holford > wrote:
>
> :Spread Eagle wrote:
> :>
> :> > When can we expect "Operation American Freedom"?
> :>
> :> Don't need it. But Canada, France, and Germany are cruising for big
> :> time regime changes and the resulting liberation.
> :
> :I guess we should start withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan, Ships
> :from the Gulf and other folks from AWACS and other command functions so
> :that they can come back and defend Canada? Do you really want OUR
> :snipers on the 'other side'?
> :
> :Oh yes, and I guess we'd better get our folks off the NORAD battlestaff
> :as well.
> :
> :We ain't got much, be we can use some of it well.
>
> I find it amazing how many people are taking this as if it was meant
> seriously. Small wonder we don't worry too much about what you think;
> minds already firmly made up, and all that.
>
> :And I guess France will have to pull her troops out of the Congo where
> :they are trying to stop a fight that has already killed 3 million or so.
> :No one else seems inclined to try and clean up that mess.
>
> All 150 or so of them? Go ahead. Last I heard, they're not
> particularly effective anyway, since numerous rapes of local girls by
> rebels seem to be happening each and every night right in the area
> they're deployed in.
>
> --



Nice job Fred,

Edit out the last paragraph which puts the posting in context and then
pretend what's left was the message.

You should be able to get work in advertising.

Dave

[Rich Johnson]

Alan Lothian wrote:
> In article >, Fred J. McCall
> > wrote:
>
>>Uh, he's doing it on purpose, Alan. I'm afraid the fact that you are
>>taking it as if he is serious says much more about your misconceptions
>>about us than about our misconceptions about anything at all.
>
>
> Alas, you are all too correct. Yet again, a foor poolish Scotsman rises
> to the bait...
>

As a canuck of scots decent I was took as well, but on the otherhand I
don't see regime change (here anyway) coming from within for a while.

--
Rich
Enfield NS
Canada

[Dave Holford]

Rich Johnson wrote:
>
> Alan Lothian wrote:
> > In article >, Fred J. McCall
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>Uh, he's doing it on purpose, Alan. I'm afraid the fact that you are
> >>taking it as if he is serious says much more about your misconceptions
> >>about us than about our misconceptions about anything at all.
> >
> >
> > Alas, you are all too correct. Yet again, a foor poolish Scotsman rises
> > to the bait...
> >
>
> As a canuck of scots decent I was took as well, but on the otherhand I
> don't see regime change (here anyway) coming from within for a while.
>
> --
> Rich
> Enfield NS
> Canada


Ah yes, but Enfield is a quiet little spot. Used to live in Grand Lake;
probably the biggest mistake of my life was leaving there for Upper
Canada. I traded 3 acres on a lake I could drink for a tiny spot of half
dead grass at three times the price, all to be near the seats of power -
my only excuse is I was too young to know better?!

But there is unrest in the land of Ontario - even the provincial
government is talking of absconding from the taxation arrangement - who
knows we might have a "Toronto tea party" yet.

Enviously
Dave

[Fred J. McCall]

Alan Lothian > wrote:

:In article >, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:>
:> Uh, he's doing it on purpose, Alan. I'm afraid the fact that you are
:> taking it as if he is serious says much more about your misconceptions
:> about us than about our misconceptions about anything at all.
:
:Alas, you are all too correct. Yet again, a foor poolish Scotsman rises
:to the bait...

Well, it's not too unreasonable to have misconceptions about us. It's
not like we don't actually have our share of idiots....

[ZZBunker]

Dave Holford > wrote in message >...
> Spread Eagle wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > > When can we expect "Operation American Freedom"?
> >
> > Don't need it. But Canada, France, and Germany are cruising for big
> > time regime changes and the resulting liberation.
> >
> > Spread Eagle
>
>
> I guess we should start withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan, Ships
> from the Gulf and other folks from AWACS and other command functions so
> that they can come back and defend Canada? Do you really want OUR
> snipers on the 'other side'?
>
> Oh yes, and I guess we'd better get our folks off the NORAD battlestaff
> as well.
>
> We ain't got much, be we can use some of it well.
>
> And I guess France will have to pull her troops out of the Congo where
> they are trying to stop a fight that has already killed 3 million or so.
> No one else seems inclined to try and clean up that mess.

The US has been trying to clean up the mess in the Congo
ever since Europe first started going there.
Which if you assholes didn't know, is one of main reasons
that the country *Liberia* exists. So don't give us any of your
revisionist history lessons about how France and the UN are
in some sort of great moral dilemma, that only they in their
great hindsight wisdom can now put the politically correct spin on.




> --------------------------
>
> See what this **** does, you turn a guy who is wholeheartedly in favour
> of U.S. foreign policy and military action into a potential opponent.
> Sure we need a revolution up here, but it might already be in progress;
> sometime we have change the government, it just takes us longer but
> wastes less blood.
>
> Don't be an idiot, we've got Art for that.
>
> Dave

[Andrew Chaplin]

Dave Holford wrote:
>
> Ah yes, but Enfield is a quiet little spot. Used to live in Grand Lake;
> probably the biggest mistake of my life was leaving there for Upper
> Canada. I traded 3 acres on a lake I could drink for a tiny spot of half
> dead grass at three times the price, all to be near the seats of power -
> my only excuse is I was too young to know better?!
>
> But there is unrest in the land of Ontario - even the provincial
> government is talking of absconding from the taxation arrangement - who
> knows we might have a "Toronto tea party" yet.

It's the Eaves ministry clutching at straws in order to secure another
mandate. I doubt they have a prayer.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Yeff]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:18:12 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Well, it's not too unreasonable to have misconceptions about us. It's
> not like we don't actually have our share of idiots....

Yes, but the US has *better* idiots than any other country's...

-Jeff B. (and our dads can beat up their dads)
yeff at erols dot com

[ZZBunker]

(Rob van Riel) wrote in message >...
> (ZZBunker) wrote in message >...
> > The US has been trying to clean up the mess in the Congo
> > ever since Europe first started going there.
>
> No, it didn't, if only because it didn't even exist in those days
> (Congo was under Portugese influence before the Americas were even
> discovered), and because there is no such critter as 'Europe' in this
> context.

The Congo existed as a region in central Africa. long before
Europe and it's morons existed. Which is the reason that
we sent people people over their to study the gorillas,
and not retarded French Geurillas.

> I've never heard any reports of the US being specifically involved
> with Congo, but any references would be appreciated.

It's doesn't matter if the US *government* is or is not
involved in the Congo. We keep telling you Euro-morons,
that unlike France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, China,
Russia, England, Ireland, and Canada, we have a *free* country.


> > Which if you assholes didn't know, is one of main reasons
> > that the country *Liberia* exists.
>
> Liberia is a different country than Congo, so I fail to see the
> connection with 'cleaning up the mess in Congo'. As far as I can tell,
> the disaster know as Liberia came about as a result of US racism
> induced colonialism.

Yeah, right. Tell me about US racism, when you
morons take care of *African* racism.


>
>
> Rob

[Cecil Turner]

Rob van Riel wrote:
>
> (Jeffrey Smidt) wrote in message >...
> > (Rob van Riel) wrote in message
> > > Liberia is a different country than Congo, so I fail to see the
> > > connection with 'cleaning up the mess in Congo'. As far as I can tell,
> > > the disaster know as Liberia came about as a result of US racism
> > > induced colonialism.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> > And what country do you come from? Seems racism and colonialism is
> > hardly a US invention not a soul distributor thereof.
>
> The Netherlands, which has seen more than its fair share of dirty
> deeds done in its name throughout several hundred years of colonial
> history. I never meant to imply that the US is historically more (or
> less) flawed than any other nation.

If all nations were indeed equal, the UN might actually work. And Libya as head of the
UNCHR wouldn't be a sad joke. (They aren't, and it is.)

> The post I was replying to, however, seemed to hold up Liberia, of all
> places, as a shining example of US benevolent and beneficial
> interference. If that's the best the US has ever produced (and I don't
> believe it is), it has a very shoddy record indeed.
>
The post prior implied France was praiseworthy for its most recent intervention,
ignoring the results of its past adventures. (But hopefully it at least can't do worse
than in Rwanda.) I for one would be quite happy to hold up a record of US non
interference in Africa, but it looks like we're going to embark on another road paved
with good intentions . . . (And hopefully we can't do worse than Somalia.)

rgds,
KTF

[Brian Allardice]

In article >, says...


>...I for one would be quite happy to hold up a record of US non
>interference in Africa, but it looks like we're going to embark on another
road paved
>with good intentions . . . (And hopefully we can't do worse than Somalia.)

Well, your slaves... up to you to clean up their mess - or, say frankly, no
oil, no interest.....

Cheers,
dba

[ZZBunker]

Dave Holford > wrote in message >...
> ZZBunker wrote:
> >
> > Dave Holford > wrote in message >...
> > > Spread Eagle wrote:
> > > >
>
> > > >
> > > > > When can we expect "Operation American Freedom"?
> > > >
> > > > Don't need it. But Canada, France, and Germany are cruising for big
> > > > time regime changes and the resulting liberation.
> > > >
> > > > Spread Eagle
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess we should start withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan, Ships
> > > from the Gulf and other folks from AWACS and other command functions so
> > > that they can come back and defend Canada? Do you really want OUR
> > > snipers on the 'other side'?
> > >
> > > Oh yes, and I guess we'd better get our folks off the NORAD battlestaff
> > > as well.
> > >
> > > We ain't got much, be we can use some of it well.
> > >
> > > And I guess France will have to pull her troops out of the Congo where
> > > they are trying to stop a fight that has already killed 3 million or so.
> > > No one else seems inclined to try and clean up that mess.
> >
> > The US has been trying to clean up the mess in the Congo
> > ever since Europe first started going there.
> > Which if you assholes didn't know, is one of main reasons
> > that the country *Liberia* exists. So don't give us any of your
> > revisionist history lessons about how France and the UN are
> > in some sort of great moral dilemma, that only they in their
> > great hindsight wisdom can now put the politically correct spin on.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Sorry it took so long to reply, I only just managed to stop laughing and
> pick myself up off the floor.
>
> See the last below, which I guess you never got to, to put my posting in
> context.
>
> Thanks for the entertainment.
>
> (I especially love that France and the UN moral dilemma stuff. Surely no
> one believes that either have any morals. It's almost as good as your
> apparent belief that the U.S. existed before Europe started to go to
> Africa.)
>
> Dave

I, myself, can't ever seem to stop laughing with Internet, Europeons
and Europe lovers. Since many of them apparently seem to think that
I believe that Europe *exists*.