Al Gore Wins the Nobel Peace Prize!

[brogers]

Do you also know if Al Gore's asswipe in his toilet is environmentally friendly?

You do know that our current president, read: not private citizen, has broken the law by invading Iraq, killed about 80,000 people, spends 2 billion US tax dollars a week on the fiasco, is making a farce of immigration, has put this country so far into debt that our great grandchildren will still owe...

Your priorities on knit picking Gore just illustrate your contempt and fascination with the man. The discredited hit pieces you site show your desperation. When you come across some credible criticism, let me know.

This thread is about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I criticize Al Gore in a thread you created about him. You defend Al Gore by complaining about George Bush, honestly, who has the "contempt and fascination" with certain someone? I'm addressing the topic, you're demonstrating a terrible case of BDS.

My criticisms are credible. You on the other hand, ramble about George Bush and the Iraq War (Which can be stopped right now by your buddies in the House if they actually wanted to).

 

[bio-chem]

This thread is about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I criticize Al Gore in a thread you created about him. You defend Al Gore by complaining about George Bush, honestly, who has the "contempt and fascination" with certain someone? I'm addressing the topic, you're demonstrating a terrible case of BDS.

My criticisms are credible. You on the other hand, ramble about George Bush and the Iraq War (Which can be stopped right now by your buddies in the House if they actually wanted to).

 

[Decker]

people argue chemistry with me. and thats a science. its how it goes. and just because your a lawyer doesnt mean your the final word on the law. i think the differences in lawyers opinions about the law is well documented. i consider my inteligence every bit equal to his or others on this site. i just chose to focus my energies in a different field. it has no bearing on this discussion. when he is wrong, he is wrong

The U.N. Charter says: "All members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It says force may only be used in self-defense or if approved by the Security Council.


As soon as you show me where the UN Security Council gave Bush the authority to use force to attack Iraq in 2003, I will back off my argument that the war is illegal.

Until then you are wrong.

 

[Decker]

CNN.com - Iran leader urges destruction of 'cancerous' Israel - December 15, 2000
just one of many articles claiming for the destruction of israel.

to fully understand the engineering and technological know how needed to develop an atomic bomb i would recomend The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. that will tell a better more in depth picture of the difficulties of development of the a-bomb even today. current estimates have iran between 5-9 years away from the bomb. and yes, destroying their centrifuges and heavy water reactor would put them back considerably from that estimate. they have two centrifuges above ground running, with possibly 2 more underground. if the 2 we know of are shut down this severely limits their capabilities of coming up with the needed fissionable material for a bomb. we have the time and capability to stop iran from becoming a nuclear power at this time. with current conditions i do not think it unwise to explore options in preventing them from becoming a nuclear power.

Wow, I must be slipping in my old age. I mean wikipedia and CNN address the quote right up front that Israel is a cancer right that must be excised. That???s called political red meat. Khamenei knows an attack of Israel would be suicide. That was also 7 years ago before the US surrounded Iran with armed forces. Life's as simple as you make it. The rhetoric he uses is directed at his ethnic and ideological enemy. Sort of like when Reagan said this: In 1982 President Reagan called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire" and described his "plan and hope for the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history."
__President Reagan, June 1981


Now granted we are more civilized than they are and that statement reflects it but it???s spoken in the same spirit???destroying the enemy as is. Considering that Iran is surrounded by the US and in light of the Iraq invasion, it would be surprising to me that Iran would not seek some sort of nuclear arms. I mean Iran watched Iraq comply with the US???s disarmament wishes and it still got leveled by an illegal US attack. Self preservation is still self preservation. An attack on Iran, which you are against, would likely guarantee that Iraq pursue the bomb--dirty or otherwise.

 

[DOMS]

The U.N. Charter says: "All members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It says force may only be used in self-defense or if approved by the Security Council.


As soon as you show me where the UN Security Council gave Bush the authority to use force to attack Iraq in 2003, I will back off my argument that the war is illegal.

Until then you are wrong.

The UN gave the US permission back in '90. Once the US went it war, the particulars were up to the US. The US chose to give Saddam a chance to get out without further violence. He failed to take the US up on the offer. So the US finished the job.

If the US had truly committed an illegal action, then where are the legal proceedings and sanctions?

 

[Decker]

what name calling? coming from the guy who used the bio- cry me a river -chem statement im a little confused.

yes, jimmy carter and bill clinton did a great job in brokering peace

ive personally posted no statements on al gore or his use use of electricity. nothing on zink, or occidental petroleum, or carbon off sets. i dont think anyone has on this site. yet, you continue to post links refuting this as if it proves your point. whatever numbers you wish to use, al gore uses considerably more electricity than the average american.

So you see no difference btn "cry me a river" and "sucking Gore's cock"...no wonder you have no sense of proportion re Iraq.

Interesting, you said in a prior post that you have opposed every stand I have made at IM. So I'll pick two things two things to flesh out what kind of person you are: The Iraq invasion and the US's new torture policy (Al Gore was against both).

Either you're a vindictive face in the republican crowd or you are a true believer.

The good news is, if you're vindictive, you support Bush's policy to battle terrorists (illegal invasion, torture) b/c you are a petty person.

The bad news is if you support Bush b/c you truly identify with the lawless attack on Iraq (read crime against humanity) and torture (pretty much the same) and you are fully aware of the consequences and implications of your choices, then you are a person whose lost his humanity.

If you fully embrace the evil that the Bush administration has done--war crime and torture--then you are in this class: the Nazis, the Japs, the mafia, Nicaraguan Death squads and the Soviets b/c they all share your views on those topics.

Here's really what your positions come down to:

*If the Illegal Invasion succeeds, then you can't call it an illegal invasion (war crime), you cheer it on.

*If torture is gotten away with, then you don't condemn torture, you embrace it.

So do you support these abominable and unconstitutional things b/c your a face in the republican crowd or do you support these things b/c you identify with the worst that humanity has to offer?

At this degree, support of war crimes and torture is tantamount to treason.

Or if the Treason succeeds, None Dare Call it Treason?

 

[Decker]

The UN gave the US permission back in '90. Once the US went it war, the particulars were up to the US. The US chose to give Saddam a chance to get out without further violence. He failed to take the US up on the offer. So the US finished the job.

If the US had truly committed an illegal action, then where are the legal proceedings and sanctions?

Yes, I've read that tortured defense you gave that UN Res 660 gave the US authority to unilaterally use force against Iraq.

It clearly does not.

First of all, 1441 lays out the process to be followed. Any alleged Iraqi violations are to be reported to the Security Council, which will then "convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation." Only the Council can then decide what to do next.

Secondly, 1441 does not authorize the use of "all necessary means"--the only language recognized as authorizing force. The U.S. and U.K. tried to get this phrase into the resolution, but other Security Council members rejected it. The replacement language, "serious consequences," is not, and was not intended to be, synonymous.

Third, after 1441 was adopted, every Security Council member--including the U.S. and U.K.--affirmed that it did not provide for "automaticity"--the automatic resort to force. It was this very issue over which the Council struggled for weeks. It's simply fraudulent to now claim that 1441 incorporated automaticity.

As U.S. ambassador John Negroponte said at the time, 1441 contained "no hidden triggers and no automaticity with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution."

Fourth, any Security Council authorization for the use of force must be unambiguous, to avoid exactly the present disagreement. Clearly, 1441 is not.

Fifth, only the Security Council itself can authorize the use of force under Article 42 of the Charter. The Council cannot cede that decision to individual member states.

And sixth, an authorization for the use of force always specifies the intended objective of that force. U.N. resolutions do not empower nations to use force for whatever reasons they wish. Even if 1441 did authorize the use of force to enter Iraq and detect and destroy Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, that would not authorize the stated--and quite different--purpose of this invasion: the removal of the present government from power.

In fact, Security Council resolutions cannot authorize "regime change." The U.N. Charter gives the Council no such power, and even the Council may act only within the limitations of the Charter.

So, really under no circumstance does 1441 permit Bush to use force unilaterally.

Even Richard Perle has admitted this time and again.

 

[Decker]

Decker, you used to come across as the intelligent but reserved free thinker on the forum. Now you are the wacko, overly vocal, neo-liberal.

Who rattled your fucking chain?

Crawl back to the comforts of the Free Republic.

Unless you have something substantive to say.

 

[DOMS]

Yes, I've read that tortured defense you gave that UN Res 660 gave the US authority to unilaterally use force against Iraq.

It clearly does not.

First of all, 1441 lays out the process to be followed. Any alleged Iraqi violations are to be reported to the Security Council, which will then "convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation." Only the Council can then decide what to do next.

Secondly, 1441 does not authorize the use of "all necessary means"--the only language recognized as authorizing force. The U.S. and U.K. tried to get this phrase into the resolution, but other Security Council members rejected it. The replacement language, "serious consequences," is not, and was not intended to be, synonymous.

Third, after 1441 was adopted, every Security Council member--including the U.S. and U.K.--affirmed that it did not provide for "automaticity"--the automatic resort to force. It was this very issue over which the Council struggled for weeks. It's simply fraudulent to now claim that 1441 incorporated automaticity.

As U.S. ambassador John Negroponte said at the time, 1441 contained "no hidden triggers and no automaticity with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution."

Fourth, any Security Council authorization for the use of force must be unambiguous, to avoid exactly the present disagreement. Clearly, 1441 is not.

Fifth, only the Security Council itself can authorize the use of force under Article 42 of the Charter. The Council cannot cede that decision to individual member states.

And sixth, an authorization for the use of force always specifies the intended objective of that force. U.N. resolutions do not empower nations to use force for whatever reasons they wish. Even if 1441 did authorize the use of force to enter Iraq and detect and destroy Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, that would not authorize the stated--and quite different--purpose of this invasion: the removal of the present government from power.

In fact, Security Council resolutions cannot authorize "regime change." The U.N. Charter gives the Council no such power, and even the Council may act only within the limitations of the Charter.

So, really under no circumstance does 1441 permit Bush to use force unilaterally.

Even Richard Perle has admitted this time and again.

Tough shit. They asked us to put our money, men, and resources on the line to take care of a problem that they couldn't. They can put whatever verbage in there that makes them happy, but they lost control the minute the US went to war.

Otherwise, again, where's the trial and sanctions?

 

[bio-chem]

The U.N. Charter says: "All members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It says force may only be used in self-defense or if approved by the Security Council.


As soon as you show me where the UN Security Council gave Bush the authority to use force to attack Iraq in 2003, I will back off my argument that the war is illegal.

Until then you are wrong.

as soon as you show me where in the constitution the president has to go anywhere other than congress to declare war ill back off mine. the constitution never gave permission to the government to give these decisions to other countries or bodies. i dont want my president beholden to anyone but the people of the united states through our elected officials. that our president has to ask france, russia, china or anyone else is stupid. the very idea of the UN is about as effective as the articles of confederation. it doesnt work.

 

[bio-chem]

So you see no difference btn "cry me a river" and "sucking Gore's cock"...no wonder you have no sense of proportion re Iraq.

ok so this is about a proportional response? im sorry i didnt realise i was supposed to go before a governing body to make sure my response was within dictated guidlines. that if im responding to an insult on an open forum escalating would be totally out of the question and i might hurt your feelings. screw that. i said the thread is about sucking gore's cock. it is. i didnt say your sucking gore's cock. but if we are really going to go to this childishness over name calling that i didnt think was offensive on either part i will end with this. you started it.

 

[DOMS]

as soon as you show me where in the constitution the president has to go anywhere other than congress to declare war ill back off mine. the constitution never gave permission to the government to give these decisions to other countries or bodies. i dont want my president beholden to anyone but the people of the united states through our elected officials. that our president has to ask france, russia, china or anyone else is stupid. the very idea of the UN is about as effective as the articles of confederation. it doesnt work.

What you've described is exactly what the UK is suffering. Right now, they're beholden to the EU as to whether or not the can go to war. A lot of Brits don't seem to be happy with that idea.

There's a very good documentary on the EU and why it sucks. Plus, it also contains some scary, and plausible, ideas about the formation of the EU and Germany.

 

[bio-chem]

Who rattled your fucking chain?

Crawl back to the comforts of the Free Republic.

Unless you have something substantive to say.

wow dude. you really have lost it. the guy was trying to give you an honest opinion of how you are viewed on this forum and you attack him? he hasnt made himself a part of this debate. you are nutty.

 

[DOMS]

I found the video in question over at the Pirate Bay.

 

[Decker]

as soon as you show me where in the constitution the president has to go anywhere other than congress to declare war ill back off mine. the constitution never gave permission to the government to give these decisions to other countries or bodies. i dont want my president beholden to anyone but the people of the united states through our elected officials. that our president has to ask france, russia, china or anyone else is stupid. the very idea of the UN is about as effective as the articles of confederation. it doesnt work.

The War Powers Resolution (which Bush has violated also) permits the president to use force with out Congress declaring war on any country. This what gave Bush authority to use force against Iraq.

But pursuant to what? Bush knew that he couldn't attack Iraq outright since he had no legal footing: IRaq did not attack the US or an ally or threaten our interests.

So President Bush went to the UN and asked to enforce the disarmament resolution.

Bush had the color of law but blew it by clearly violating the resolution he sought to enforce.

 

[Decker]

wow dude. you really have lost it. the guy was trying to give you an honest opinion of how you are viewed on this forum and you attack him? he hasnt made himself a part of this debate. you are nutty.

Yeah, I'm practically Howard Dean crazy.

What is with you conservatives? You simply cannot state an opinion you have to attack the speaker.

First you say something about sucking Gore's cock then this genius chimes in with this:

"Decker, you used to come across as the intelligent but reserved free thinker on the forum. Now you are the wacko, overly vocal, neo-liberal."

He doesn't even defend his asinine statement. NO, he's got you for that.

And you just parrot him. What am I supposed to do?

 

[bio-chem]

The War Powers Resolution (which Bush has violated also) permits the president to use force with out Congress declaring war on any country. This what gave Bush authority to use force against Iraq.

But pursuant to what? Bush knew that he couldn't attack Iraq outright since he had no legal footing: IRaq did not attack the US or an ally or threaten our interests.

So President Bush went to the UN and asked to enforce the disarmament resolution.

Bush had the color of law but blew it by clearly violating the resolution he sought to enforce.

look i could care less if the international game is being played or not by our president. if he overstepped his legal rights as president, then it is our congress by power of the constitution and as our elected representitives that are under power to call him to task. no international law has the power to do anything to my president. just like DOMS keeps asking. where is the trial? congress authorized force in iraq. both times. i accept that. the UN has no power. they should have no power. it is a worthless body that has accomplished none of its stated goals.

 

[bio-chem]

The War Powers Resolution (which Bush has violated also) permits the president to use force with out Congress declaring war on any country. This what gave Bush authority to use force against Iraq.

But pursuant to what? Bush knew that he couldn't attack Iraq outright since he had no legal footing: IRaq did not attack the US or an ally or threaten our interests.

So President Bush went to the UN and asked to enforce the disarmament resolution.

Bush had the color of law but blew it by clearly violating the resolution he sought to enforce.

this doesnt show bush broke the law. if anything it shows congress gave him permission to go into iraq. he didnt break the law

 

[bio-chem]

Yeah, I'm practically Howard Dean crazy.

What is with you conservatives? You simply cannot state an opinion you have to attack the speaker.

First you say something about sucking Gore's cock then this genius chimes in with this:

"Decker, you used to come across as the intelligent but reserved free thinker on the forum. Now you are the wacko, overly vocal, neo-liberal."

He doesn't even defend his asinine statement. NO, he's got you for that.

And you just parrot him. What am I supposed to do?

im sorry. i thought that every one of my opinions has been stated clearly. and ive not attacked you. now i will. yea, your coming off as a crazy, wacko, neo-liberal. its not needed to back it up. people reading these statements of yours are coming to these opinoins. clemson was just giving an overall impression of how your posts have changed on this forum. take it, or not. if your not able to take critique then this might not be the place for you. its up to you. you need to be a little bit thicker skinned. if your looking for someone getting attacked look at posts directed at danny. and yet he can take it like a big boy even if he is 17.

 

[Decker]

look i could care less if the international game is being played or not by our president. if he overstepped his legal rights as president, then it is our congress by power of the constitution and as our elected representitives that are under power to call him to task. no international law has the power to do anything to my president. just like DOMS keeps asking. where is the trial? congress authorized force in iraq. both times. i accept that. the UN has no power. they should have no power. it is a worthless body that has accomplished none of its stated goals.

Fine. The UN is a worthless body and international law is a joke and negotiations are a farce.

Do you see how ridiculous that looks? Do you know what you've just articulated? The law of the jungle. So I guess all that 'rule of law' stuff during the Clinton impeachment was just bullshit.

The charter of the UN, the holdings of the Nuremberg Trials and a host of treaties make up international law. As a founding member of the UN, the US is the single most powerful member.

Just b/c there is no trial for a war crime doesn't mean it did not happen.

That's like saying Capone was no murderer b/c he was only tried and convicted of tax evasion.

The reason there will be no trial is b/c any condemnation of the US will be killed in the Security Council by the US. The US already ignores the World Court (UN's court) b/c the first case on the docket is war crimes charges against the US for the Iran/Contra Affair.

 

[Decker]

im sorry. i thought that every one of my opinions has been stated clearly. and ive not attacked you. now i will. yea, your coming off as a crazy, wacko, neo-liberal. its not needed to back it up. people reading these statements of yours are coming to these opinoins. clemson was just giving an overall impression of how your posts have changed on this forum. take it, or not. if your not able to take critique then this might not be the place for you. its up to you. you need to be a little bit thicker skinned. if your looking for someone getting attacked look at posts directed at danny. and yet he can take it like a big boy even if he is 17.

Oh so now you know that "people reading these statements of (mine) are coming to these opinoins"...

Oh my, since objectivity is the essence of truth I guess I am crazy and wacko and have lost any credibility I might have had...I say might.

You know, I left here originally a few months back b/c the level of discourse was really bottoming out.

Now you two have come along and really driven the point home. Your arguments are retreads that really aren't thought out or done very well. You sure can call a guy names though. Zing!

See, I don't really care about the names (that is perturbing though), it's your woefully substandard arguments that cause me to wonder why the hell I'm wasting my time here.

After I left here, I went to a political forum and GetBig. Both are eminently superior to the work product here. I think I'll go back.

So good luck debating 17 year old danny--you should be right on par with him.

 

[bio-chem]

Fine. The UN is a worthless body and international law is a joke and negotiations are a farce.

Do you see how ridiculous that looks? Do you know what you've just articulated? The law of the jungle. So I guess all that 'rule of law' stuff during the Clinton impeachment was just bullshit.

The charter of the UN, the holdings of the Nuremberg Trials and a host of treaties make up international law. As a founding member of the UN, the US is the single most powerful member.

Just b/c there is no trial for a war crime doesn't mean it did not happen.

That's like saying Capone was no murderer b/c he was only tried and convicted of tax evasion.

The reason there will be no trial is b/c any condemnation of the US will be killed in the Security Council by the US. The US already ignores the World Court (UN's court) b/c the first case on the docket is war crimes charges against the US for the Iran/Contra Affair.

can you explain to me what if any of the UN goals have been accomplished since its creation? i dont want the US government sub-serviant to another body or entity. i consider iran a dangerous nation with dangerous intentions towards us and our allies with desires to build nuclear arms. if any of these basic statements you disagree with let me know. everything else seems to be so far off topic that i think we need to bring it back to the issue at hand.

 

[bio-chem]

Oh so now you know that "people reading these statements of (mine) are coming to these opinoins"...

Oh my, since objectivity is the essence of truth I guess I am crazy and wacko and have lost any credibility I might have had...I say might.

You know, I left here originally a few months back b/c the level of discourse was really bottoming out.

Now you two have come along and really driven the point home. Your arguments are retreads that really aren't thought out or done very well. You sure can call a guy names though. Zing!

See, I don't really care about the names (that is perturbing though), it's your woefully substandard arguments that cause me to wonder why the hell I'm wasting my time here.

After I left here, I went to a political forum and GetBig. Both are eminently superior to the work product here. I think I'll go back.

So good luck debating 17 year old danny--you should be right on par with him.

yea, people not involved with this debate are starting to now enter the thread and voice their opinion on your posts. you might pay attention to what they are saying without writing them off so quickly.

i really dont think your being objective here. and the name calling was begun by yourself. now your mad? this thing went on for 5 pages before the name calling started. when someone responds back you get all pissed off? i insulted the thread in a very mild mannor. nothing has gotten out of hand. grow some thicker skin and jump back into the debate with something that will get someone to think. the way your presenting your point of view is pushing people away from taking you seriously.

but if you feel another forum is more to your tastes? im sure we will do fine without you.