[valve bouncer]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
You have utterly no idea what your talking about do you!

Yeah, must admit, I had a quiet little chuckle at that too. I mean if sierra Leone, for example, applys sanctions against America, then America ceases to be a sovereign nation???

 

[MMike]

I mean if sierra Leone, for example, applys sanctions against America, then America ceases to be a sovereign nation???

And I wouldn't put it past those crazy bastards. America should take 'em out before it's too late

 

[valve bouncer]

And I wouldn't put it past those crazy bastards. America should take 'em out before it's too late

Don't mock the Sierra Leoninians, they are masterful knife fighters and we'd certainly be more in danger if we got on the wrong side of 'em, being a sovereign nation and all.

 

[alwaysbroncin19]

A little help for you DB's.

Taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/

Sovereignty
First published Sat May 31, 2003; substantive revision Wed Jun 18, 2003
Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning, supreme authority within a territory. It is a modern notion of political authority. Historical variants can be understood along three dimensions -- the holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. The state is the political institution in which sovereignty is embodied. An assemblage of states forms a sovereign states system.


Iraq had this at one time, but cannot have this with sanctions placed against it.

Iraq is not a soverign entity.....period.

 

[RenegadeRick]

A little help for you DB's.

Taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/

Sovereignty
First published Sat May 31, 2003; substantive revision Wed Jun 18, 2003
Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning, supreme authority within a territory. It is a modern notion of political authority. Historical variants can be understood along three dimensions -- the holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. The state is the political institution in which sovereignty is embodied. An assemblage of states forms a sovereign states system.


Iraq had this at one time, but cannot have this with sanctions placed against it.

Iraq is not a soverign entity.....period.

Just don't see where that definition supports your claim.

Iraq is no longer a soverign entity, because the US has "supreme authority within [the] territory." But not because of sanctions.

sanctions:
5 : an economic or military coercive measure adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication

What we are doing in Iraq is an occupation.

occupation:
3 a : the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : SEIZURE b : the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force c : the military force occupying a country or the policies carried out by it

That is why they are not soverign.

 

[MMike]

DO you suppose they have the Sierra Club in Sierra Leone?

 

[alwaysbroncin19]

Just don't see where that definition supports your claim.

Iraq is no longer a soverign entity, because the US has "supreme authority within [the] territory." But not because of sanctions.



What we are doing in Iraq is an occupation.



That is why they are not soverign.

Ok Rick,

The bases for this arguement is from an earlier post stating that we invaded a soverign nation,,,,,,,not true. Also, take off the blinders and look at the BOLD EPHIN PRINT! Iraq did not have the "supreme authority" in its own nation. The UN did.

 

[MMike]

Ok Rick,

The bases for this arguement is from an earlier post stating that we invaded a soverign nation,,,,,,,not true. Also, take off the blinders and look at the BOLD EPHIN PRINT! Iraq did not have the "supreme authority" in its own nation. The UN did.

Neither here nor there, but you have a spelling mistake in your signature. Just FYI

 

[RenegadeRick]

Ok Rick,

The bases for this arguement is from an earlier post stating that we invaded a soverign nation,,,,,,,not true. Also, take off the blinders and look at the BOLD EPHIN PRINT! Iraq did not have the "supreme authority" in its own nation. The UN did.

So based on that definition, is any nation really soverign? Don't all civilized nations defer to the UN? Even the US?

What about the US's slogan "One nation under God?" Aren't we all deferring to the "supreme authority" of our higher power?

Just where is the EPHIN line on soverignty anyhow?

 

[golgiaparatus]

I dont even know what I am going to do yet. Cant decide if I want to just go down the Donkey Line or what.

 

[dante]

295,734,134 U.S. Citizens from all ethnic backgrounds and we still have two dominating parties and no black Pres??? I know this has been discussed here before, but I think voting Independent, Green, or just about any party other than Dumbocrats/ Repugnantcans could be what’s best for us all. Speaking on a long term basis, of course.

I too will be voting my conscious

congratulations, you just not only threw your vote away, but possibly helped elect someone who's views are MORE divergent from your own.

face it, the way our electoral process is set up NO 3rd party is viable on a federal level. Perot got almost 20% of the vote and ZERO electoral votes. local elections are a slightly different matter, but without the national support, money and resources, any successes are barely blips on the radar screen.

the *only* way to institute real change is to figure out which party reflects your views closest, become a member, and WORK FOR CHANGE WITHIN THAT PARTY. the religious right didn't form their own party, they worked to change the republican party to fit their own ideas. I know that's a lot harder than pulling a 3rd party lever and feeling good about yourself, but that's why the republicans control all three branches of government now and the left wing has... the green party.

lthumbsdown:

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Ok Rick,

The bases for this arguement is from an earlier post stating that we invaded a soverign nation,,,,,,,not true. Also, take off the blinders and look at the BOLD EPHIN PRINT! Iraq did not have the "supreme authority" in its own nation. The UN did.

Throughout this thread, you've shown yourself to be borderline retarded....

The UN didn't have control of sh*t in Iraq. They had "investigators" there....Please, Hans Blixx...yeah...he had supreme authority...

I suppose France isn't sovereign either cause they haven't split as many Muslim heads as they could've, huh?

Here's a hand-out for ya since you seem to need one: gynecologist

Don't mock the Sierra Leoninians, they are masterful knife fighters and we'd certainly be more in danger if we got on the wrong side of 'em, being a sovereign nation and all.

I prefer the Flying Lobster Claw attack that was perfected by the Ivory Coastanese.

 

[LordOpie]

The UN didn't have control of sh*t in Iraq.

QFE45

 

[Secret Squirrel]

QFE? What's that?

 

[LordOpie]

quoted for emphasis

 

[Transcend]

You can't be a soverign nation with sanctions placed against you. Sorry it refutes the very definition and pretext of what soverignty is.
We bombed that sh*t in the late 90's, and for good reason.
.

Holy crap, you are stupid. Please go read a book or something ok?

 

[Changleen]

Ok Rick,

The bases for this arguement is from an earlier post stating that we invaded a soverign nation,,,,,,,not true. Also, take off the blinders and look at the BOLD EPHIN PRINT! Iraq did not have the "supreme authority" in its own nation. The UN did.

Supreme authority WITHIN IT'S OWN TERRITORY doofus - Sanctions stop things coming in. What has that got to do with anything inside the territory?

 

[JohnE]

Supreme executive authority derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony...

 

[Changleen]

"Watery bint".

 

[dante]

Supreme executive authority derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony...

Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Would you prefer a Democrat lead House, Senate and Excutive in 2008?

Can some of the monstrous policy be fixed in a relatively short-term or would the Dems agenda push things just as stupid, just as far?

Ok....back on topic.

I don't mind a Republican PotUS as long as it's balanced by a Democratic House and/or Senate.

Pretty much, I'll be pleased as spam-in-a-can as long as there's someone in the big house in WADC that doesn't make 62% of the public do this on a daily basis.

 

[JohnE]

Come see the violence inherent in the system...look, look, I'm being repressed!