vinva Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 As a matter of fact, I am none of the above, but you are very close to me. One of the above, William, is my idol/mentor/friend. My work is more war oriented and romantic in a man/woman sense than his and his more mythic, more grand. Here are other clues: books on the sea, plays.As to weapons of war. I believe an excellent case exists for the illegality of weapons of uranium depletion since Geneva bans weapons that will kill a mix of soldiers and civilians indiscriminately. Napalm is banned for certain, Cluster bombs and cluster munitions also kill civilians and soldiers indiscriminately-- one of the defininitions of an illegal weapon. Please explain to me how Bush is going to prevail before the World Court on the matter of weapons? First off, find me a study that conclusively shows that DU rounds are as harmful as you claim. A little hint...there isn't one. Secondly, Bush will not be brought in front of the World Court because we have not used any illegal weapons. Until they are banned, they are not illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 But since you're a professor and published author and all, you must have known that... Of course, this has not been established - not by a long shot. I think it needs to be qualified - a legitimate professor and published author. In this day and age, anyone can self-publish on their own website (duh!) or publish their own book. Crazy - we're waiting... but not holding our breath... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I'm getting really tired of this thread. It is not easy to be on the same side as OaktonSkinsFan for this long. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse1 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I think part of the issue here is that all weapons can kill indiscriminately. They aren't designed to do that, but they can. And you really can't equate cluster bombs with nuclear weapons, maybe napalm, but not nuclear weapons. I understand your point, but where does the deliniation stop? I gave an example before about grenades. Should grenades be illegal because, while they are targeted, their blast cannot necessarily be contained? An excellent point, or points. If I were advocating for the other side, I would hire you at once. You've forced me into a logical extention that would cause me to create an arbitrary radius to define a contained zone. Justices don't like such creativity. From the position you leave me I think I would take the position that cluster munitions look like toys and are highly likely to attract children (which would support a charge of genocide); I would also argue that cluster bombs and munitions have higher initial fail rates than do grenades and are, therefore, once again, more dangerous to children than are grenades. Note to the diseased one, Oakton, or whatever; SkinFan: You're right. I'm a big faker. I'm actually a rub-down guy in a gay gym, 25, and only read comic books. I like to make up things about my daddy, George, and my uncle, Dick, because they won't let me come home to be with Mooomy anymore. It's not true what I saw that Daddy's a moron because he's as smart as me and he wouldn't touch a fly, not my fly anyway. so bye for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Cluster bombs and cluster munitions are not specifically banned under the 1997 Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty. I'm almost positive that cluster bombs were around in 1997? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinva Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I'm getting really tired of this thread.It is not easy to be on the same side as OaktonSkinsFan for this long. :laugh: Couldn't agree more...at least crazyhorse sometimes sounds intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse1 Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Cluster bombs and cluster munitions are not specifically banned under the 1997 Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty. I'm almost positive that cluster bombs were around in 1997? We didn't sign in 1997, did we? You tell me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 We didn't sign in 1997, did we? You tell me. Go to amazon.com and search the THE and BEAR under non-fiction.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 well ive had a week off and this is my last post in this thread, i will outline everything i have reaserched (no links will be provided so dont scream) and concluded in my vacation from the insanity of some people. the following is both a list of my personal beliefs, and my findings. I BELIEVE: -as a christian i say torture is wrong -as an american i say terrorists deserve it, but shouldnt recieve it -the geneva conventions do not protect terrorists, BUT generaly acepted human rights laws DO. -another reason why we SHOULDNT torture them is that it drags us down to their level -someone needs to pay for abu gharib, not in the world courts, but within our own country -if anyone in the administration is responsible it is rumsefeld, not bush -the CO's and enlisted persons in the US amry responsible for abu gharib share equal blame -all that talk about unifroms is bull ****, al queda and the insurgents do NOT have uniforms, nor a note-worthy chain of command, most DO carry conceled weapons, and they use underhanded tactics. if thats not good enough for anyone i dont care, if you disagree with me i dont care, i couldnt care less for anyone who has a blame-america-always atitude, so dont respond to this, nor comment on it, nor debate it any longer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Note to the diseased one, Oakton, or whatever; SkinFan: You're right. I'm a big faker. I'm actually a rub-down guy in a gay gym, 25, and only read comic books. Actually, I would have pegged you as the guy taking the "rub down" - and I don't mean lying down either. Toodles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.