U.s. Suspends Aid To 35 Countries Over New Icc

this just makes me sick...

July 2, 2003
U.S. Suspends Aid to 35 Countries Over New International Court
By ELIZABETH BECKER
New York Times

ASHINGTON, July 1 — The Bush administration suspended all American military assistance to 35 countries today because they refused to pledge to give American citizens immunity before the International Criminal Court.

The administration warned last year that under a provision of the new American antiterrorism law, any country that became a member of the new court but failed to give exemptions to Americans serving within its borders would lose such aid.

That includes training programs as well as financing of weapons and equipment purchases.

Many of the countries affected, like Colombia and Ecuador, are considered critical to the administration's efforts to bring stability to the Western Hemisphere. Others, like Croatia, are preparing to join NATO and were counting on American help to modernize their armed forces.

Officials said that in all, $47.6 million in aid and $613,000 in military education programs would be lost to the 35 countries.

The new court is the world's first permanent forum for putting on trial people charged with genocide and other crimes against humanity. The administration strongly opposes it on the ground that Americans could be subjected to politically motivated prosecutions.

"There should be no misunderstanding, that the issue of protecting U.S. persons from the International Criminal Court will be a significant and pressing matter in our relations with every state," Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said today.

President Bush signed a waiver exempting 22 countries because they had signed but not yet ratified immunity agreements. That list includes Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Nigeria.

Full members of NATO, and other major allies — including Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Japan and South Korea — are not part of the military assistance prohibition.

Prince Zeid Raad al-Hussein of Jordan, the president of the assembly of nations that signed the treaty establishing the court, said 90 countries had become members despite Washington's opposition.

"The simple conclusion is that the American campaign has not had a negative effect on the establishment of this court," said the prince, who is his country's ambassador to the United Nations. "We have a court in place, a very fine panel of judges, a prosecutor, and we should be fully running by the end of the year."

The original provision passed by Congress in the antiterrorism law emphasized American service members, but the administration has interpreted it to include all citizens of the United States.

Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., the assistant secretary for political military affairs, said the administration had no intention of undermining the court.

Instead, he said, the administration wants to preserve its right to remain outside its purview, especially with a rise in the number of attempts to charge American officials with war crimes.

"Our opposition is not meant to be a lack of respect for the jurists involved in the I.C.C.," Mr. Bloomfield said. "It is concern that there could be politically motivated charges against American citizens. Several standing officials have been under war crimes indictment in Belgium this year for their roles in the 1991 gulf war."

He said those included Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

Supporters of the court dismissed that argument, saying the Belgian court is a national body very different rules from those of the new international court, which has safeguards that would help protect American officials.

Richard Dicker, a director of Human Rights Watch in New York, which has lobbied for the court's creation, said the suspension of military aid today amounted to a defeat for the current campaign against the court.

"This policy is creating a dilemma where the administration has to chose between sound military cooperation with democratic nations and this campaign of ideology against the international criminal court," he said. "I've never seen a sanctions regime aimed at countries that believe in the rule of law rather than ones that commit human rights abuses."

Senior administration officials said the announcement should not be seen as a permanent freeze on all military aid to the 35 countries.

The aid can be resumed if they sign the exemption agreement, or the president can issue waivers at any time if he believes that by failing to help a foreign government face an emergency, the country's national security would be put at risk.

That was little comfort to the nations that lost military assistance today. Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said the July 1 cutoff would have differing impacts on the countries.

"There may be places where, you know, most of the money has been spent," he said. "There may be places where most of the money has not be spent."

One example he cited was Colombia. Of the more than $100 million that the United States was to give to Colombia this fiscal year in military assistance, only $5 million will be suspended.

"As of today we're suspending the assistance and the provision of defense articles to countries that failed to receive waivers," said Maj. Michael Shavers, a Defense Department spokesman."I can't tell you which countries will be affected, because we don't have the list yet."

Among those in limbo could be foreign officers and students preparing to receive professional military training here, as well as governments that were relying on the United States to finance the purchase of American weapons and services.

I would just like to add another little example of America using its financial power IMO stupidly

Sorry it doesn't copy too well the original is here

Quote:

---

"It's funny how the moral positions are usually the healthier, safer and politically sensible positions," she says, speaking at her home in Washington.

On his first business day in office, with the support of voters like Wendy, President George W Bush started a war few people have heard about - his war on abortion.

Pro-choice and anti-abortion activists outside the US Supreme Court
The anti-abortion movement is growing stronger under Bush

He reinstated an old policy from the Reagan days called the Mexico City policy or "gag rule".

The rule states that the United States will not allow its overseas aid money to be used to fund groups that carry out or provide any kind of advice or information about abortion.

Hundreds of women's health organisations in the poorest nations of the world - places where maternal mortality and infant death are high - faced a tough choice. Either sign the gag rule and be silenced on abortion, or refuse and lose millions of dollars in US aid.

Most refused to sign. As a result, thousands of family planning clinics across the developing world have closed their doors, making access to vital contraceptives hard to come by.

The US aim was to cut abortion worldwide, but has it worked?

Back-street abortions

I travelled to Ethiopia - a country where abortion is illegal but where a recent study at Addis Ababa hospital found half of all female deaths there were caused by botched back-street abortions. Here the cost of silence can be high.

If they are forced to give birth they throw the children into latrines or abandon them for the hyenas to eat them
Amare Badada, Ethiopian Family Guidance Association

One of the most upsetting moments was standing outside a one-room tin hut where Asmara, a prostitute, had bled to death just hours earlier.

Aged 22, she received condoms from the local Marie Stopes clinic. It closed when the US cut its cash after it failed to sign. She got pregnant and died.

"She had no money to go to hospital, so became too weak to move, then she died," her friend told me.

On the other side of Addis Ababa is Molu, living with nine children in one room. She has been told one more baby will kill her.

But the clinic that gives her the pill for free is shutting. There is no other clinic.

Molu says if she gets pregnant again, she will carry out her own abortion with wire.

"Either way I will die," she says with chilling fatality.

'Hypocritical'

In the region of Nazareth in Ethiopia's highland plains, I met Amare Badada of the Ethiopian Family Guidance Association.

Mr Badada lists rape, forced marriage and genital mutilation as part of daily life for women.

"These women will always find a way to abort somehow," he said. "If they are forced to give birth they throw the children into latrines or abandon them for the hyenas to eat them."

Ethiopian woman and two children
Marie Stopes says the policy has not cut the number of abortions

Mr Badada refused to sign the gag rule, and has since watched his organisation's family planning clinics close down one after the other. In the region of Nazareth, there were 54 clinics last year. Next year there will be just 10.

Each clinic serves approximately 500 women who walk an average of 10 kilometres (six miles) to get there. The impact of the closures is immense.

"Under the gag rule, I can treat a woman who comes bleeding after an illegal abortion but I am not allowed to warn her of the dangers before she goes," Mr Badada said. "We should not be told what to think and say.

"It is hypocritical to allow US taxpayers' money to be used to fund abortion in the States but not here.

"The US is driving women into the hands of back-street abortionists."

Getachew Bekele, Ethiopian director of Marie Stopes International, who also refused, says: "It hasn't worked to cut abortion. All it has done is deprive women of condoms."

Abstinence

A key aim of the American anti-abortion lobby is to silence Marie Stopes, which is lobbying to overturn the abortion laws in Ethiopia and other places where it is illegal.

Under President Bush, the anti-abortion movement is stronger than ever.

Supporters believe every woman has the right to have as many babies as God plans. They also believe the high death-rate of mothers in labour, and the numbers of unwanted babies can be tackled with an alternative solution - abstinence.

Mr Bush has won plaudits for his promise to spend $15bn to fight Aids, but few people know that one-third of the money set aside for prevention is to go to faith-based, abstinence-only programmes.

But not all Americans agree. Wendy Turnbull works for Population Action International - a pro-choice lobby group.

"How can we look Africa in the eye and say here you go - here's the money, but we tell you how to spend it. How arrogant is that?"

But Wendy Wright remains convinced America knows best.

"It's not that I know what is right for other women," she says. "It's that I know what is right."

---

"faith-based, abstinence-only programmes" What a DICK. It would be funny if it wasn't killling people

So the President of the United States is doing what he said he was going to do. I don´t understand the point you are making. Normally world leaders are given a hard time for not doing what they say.

Quote:

---

So the President of the United States is doing what he said he was going to do. I don´t understand the point you are making. Normally world leaders are given a hard time for not doing what they say.

---

I think the point you are missing (on purpose?) is not that the president is doing what he said he was going to do, but the morality of what he is doing and the subsequent consequences of his actions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@2 July 2003 - 18:35

Quote:

---

So the President of the United States is doing what he said he was going to do. I don´t understand the point you are making. Normally world leaders are given a hard time for not doing what they say.

---

I think the point you are missing (on purpose?) is not that the president is doing what he said he was going to do, but the morality of what he is doing and the subsequent consequences of his actions.

---

quite right, by jpaul's moral vacuum logic, its okay for a president to kill a child, as long as he announces his intention beforehand.

problems understanding the point we are making, indeed

America seems to be in a lose-lose situation here:

Quote:

---

Among those in limbo could be foreign officers and students preparing to receive professional military training here, as well as governments that were relying on the United States to finance the purchase of American weapons and services.

---

In other threads the US has been castigated because we did provide training and arms to foriegn armies, now we get keelhauled because we aren't.

Quote:

---

I would just like to add another little example of America using its financial power IMO stupidly

---

Presumably your country will step in and spend your money wisely?

Already this thread is taking on the tone of recent topics where people who disagree are labeled as living in a "moral vacuum". I should hope that it would be possible to disagree with JPaul without stooping to name calling.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myfiles3000+2 July 2003 - 19:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 2 July 2003 - 19:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-evilbagpuss@2 July 2003 - 18:35

Quote:

---

So the President of the United States is doing what he said he was going to do. I don´t understand the point you are making. Normally world leaders are given a hard time for not doing what they say.

---

I think the point you are missing (on purpose?) is not that the president is doing what he said he was going to do, but the morality of what he is doing and the subsequent consequences of his actions.

---

quite right, by jpaul&#39;s moral vacuum logic, its okay for a president to kill a child, as long as he announces his intention beforehand.

problems understanding the point we are making, indeed [/b][/quote]
When did the US president kill a child. Or are you just making a ludicrous, emotive point.

The President stated that if certain actions / assurances were not taken / given then he would respond by removing aid that his people were suppying. I don&#39;t think he is under any obligation to give this aid. The assurances were not given and he withdrew the aid. That must be his prerogative. As I recall it was military aid and not for example food / medicine. So we are not talking about leaving people starving here, we are talking about not giving them guns and training them how to use them.

Your point is that he was morally wrong to do this, you are entitled to that point of view. He obviously disagrees and sees his first priority as being the well-being of his citizens, through out the world.

I have no problem with this position he is taking, indeed I would expect my Government to look after my welfare, wherever in the world I happened to be. I do not wish to be tried using any legal system other than the one my own country subscribes to. I certainly don&#39;t wish to be tried by some UN Court.

I&#39;ll crack the nutshell for you, myfiles:

In all cases, we are speaking of monetary aid; the question of what said "aid" constitutes is, I suppose, to be left to the countries receiving our largesse to define.

In convenient cases, it is to be termed "interference"; in this case it is still referred to as "aid". ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@2 July 2003 - 20:14
Already this thread is taking on the tone of recent topics where people who disagree are labeled as living in a "moral vacuum". I should hope that it would be possible to disagree with JPaul without stooping to name calling.

---

i would encourage clocker and jpaul to re-read my post, you both missed the meaning. read a little more carefully.

Please feel free to read my last.

It&#39;s not so much of a diatribe as you posted, however one tries one&#39;s best to get the meaning across. Particularly when doing so from a moral vacuum.

Oh and you may not have noticed before, so I&#39;ll make it as plain as possible. I don&#39;t actually respond particularly well to condescending phrases like "read a little more carefully".

Quote:

---

When did the US president kill a child. Or are you just making a ludicrous, emotive point.

---

what i did was extract the logic of your comment, and applied it to another situation to reveal its flaw.

Quote:

---

Your point is that he was morally wrong to do this, you are entitled to that point of view. He obviously disagrees and sees his first priority as being the well-being of his citizens, through out the world.

---

Yes, thats how shrub sees it. He&#39;s a self-proclaimed man of god...apparently the irony of him refusing to comply with a higher secular authority is lost on you.

Quote:

---

I have no problem with this position he is taking, indeed I would expect my Government to look after my welfare, wherever in the world I happened to be. I do not wish to be tried using any legal system other than the one my own country subscribes to. I certainly don&#39;t wish to be tried by some UN Court

---

just what is so terrible with the UN all of a sudden? Its creation depended on american support. If being subject to international criminal law is so terrible, why do you think virtually all other advanced, open societies are willing to live under it?

ANYWAY, i was hoping someone might have something intelligent to say in defence of shrub.

You wish intelligent replies to your drivel, when you appear to think that cutting edge satire is to call President Bush shrub.

Best of luck, however I can&#39;t keep up with this level of debate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jpaul+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jpaul)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>When did the US president kill a child. Or are you just making a ludicrous, emotive point.
[/b]

---

I think the "kill a child" point was in response to this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jpaul+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jpaul)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So the President of the United States is doing what he said he was going to do. I don´t understand the point you are making. Normally world leaders are given a hard time for not doing what they say. [/b]

---

Again.. the point wasnt about whether Bush is doing what he said he was going to do or not going to do. Its about the morality and consequences of those actions.

Your response seemed to imply that the quality of the action is unimportant as long as the President has said he&#39;s going to do it beforehand. By making the "kill a child" point myfiles was merely pointing out that your argument, when taken to its logical conclusion, would justify "killing a child" as long as the President had promised he was going to do it.

The point of this thread, for those that missed it, is that the USA is attempting to blackmail other countries into bending to its will. Its not just about military aid either. Read the 2nd post on abortion.

Now getting back to the initial post.... Unless the USA wants the right to carry out genocide at some point in the future.. what is it so scared of?

As was pointed out in another thread by oblivion, the legal and technical basis for the ICC has been in place since WW2.

<!--QuoteBegin-jpaul@
My apologies if you picked me up wrong.

I was replying to a specific thing which had been posted and not the topic in general.

However I have to disagree with your overall point. Basically, who decides

a, what is a crime against humanity

b, how is it proven

c, what court has jurisdiction,

d, what judicial system should be used (e.g. inquisatorial or accusatorial)

If the USA does not feel that the way these matters are being dealt with internationally is correct then they have every right (indeed obligation) to protect their citizens from them.

I would certainly hope that my Government would not allow me to be extradited and tried in a country where the penalty, for theft, may be the amputation of my hand. [/quote]

<!--QuoteBegin-oblivion

It&#39;s under UN rule, it doesn&#39;t even have the death penalty.
It has a group of judges who are randomly chosen from all UN countries (also america)whom are well respected for their knowlidge in international law.

You make it sound like someone might be led to the slaughter.

a) since the second world war agreements have been made on this matter.

b ) by evidence and testamony

c) the United Nations (also considerd the institution that&#39;s keeping the world at peace and where the US has veto right) it&#39;s court abide by the agreements made between everyone that were agreed uppon.

d) î look at c î

The agreements have been there since the second world war

If what happend in yugoslavia happend in the us, the us would NOT extradite the head honcho&#33; why?
why do people find this normal [/quote]

Lets try and bear in mind what the ICC is meant to achieve. A consensus that will make sure no one is above the law when it comes to crimes against humanity. What is so terrible about that?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myfiles3000@2 July 2003 - 16:44


ANYWAY, i was hoping someone might have something intelligent to say in defence of shrub.

---

Seems to me that you&#39;ve already gotten several responses.
The fact that they disagree with you appears to be the problem here.

all your aid are belong to us :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Seems to me that you&#39;ve already gotten several responses.
The fact that they disagree with you appears to be the problem here. [/b]

---

Most of the responses did not address the inital point at all.

You addressed it with this..

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker
In other threads the US has been castigated because we did provide training and arms to foriegn armies, now we get keelhauled because we aren&#39;t[/quote]

I think it depends on whom you provide training to. The point here is that the US originally thought it was right to provide this aid in the 1st place. Now they have decided that unless those countries refuse to support the ICC they will have all aid removed.

That is blackmail isnt it? This is the point of this thread isnt it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@2 July 2003 - 16:55


The point of this thread, for those that missed it, is that the USA is attempting to blackmail other countries into bending to its will. Its not just about military aid either. Read the 2nd post on abortion.

---

The point of the responses, since you keep missing it, is that those countries are free to join you on the higher moral plane and refuse to accept the conditions.

Our bat, our ball, our rules.

Quote:

---

The point of the responses, since you keep missing it, is that those countries are free to join you on the higher moral plane and refuse to accept the conditions.

Our bat, our ball, our rules.

---

So basically... they are free to join us on the "higher moral plane" but if they do they will pay the price and face retribution from the US that will have severe effects on the civilians in that country?

"Our bat, our ball, our rules."

Thank you I couldnt have hoped for a better response. For a moment I thought you were going to argue that this US policy is based on ethics.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@3 July 2003 - 00:16


I think it depends on whom you provide training to.

---

Now I see the problem. I had assumed that English was your first language. My apologies.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jpaul
Now I see the problem. I had assumed that English was your first language. My apologies.

---

I love hostility in the face of logic :D

I was merely pointing out to clocker that the criticism of the US providing military aid is usually when they provide it to guys like Saddam Hussein who they know at the time is a monster. Military aid to &#39;normal&#39; gvts isnt even an issue.

Its not a difficult concept to understand JP although it does take this thread OT quite nicely. You crafty ole devil you :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@2 July 2003 - 17:24


Thank you I couldnt have hoped for a better response. For a moment I thought you were going to argue that this US policy is based on ethics.

---

No government&#39;s policy is based on ethics.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+3 July 2003 - 00:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 3 July 2003 - 00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-jpaul
Now I see the problem. I had assumed that English was your first language. My apologies.

---

I love hostility in the face of logic :D

I was merely pointing out to clocker that the criticism of the US providing military aid is usually when they provide it to guys like Saddam Hussein who they know at the time is a monster. Military aid to &#39;normal&#39; gvts isnt even an issue.

Its not a difficult concept to understand JP although it does take this thread OT quite nicely. You crafty ole devil you :P[/b][/quote]

Well..........done

You......are......learning......how......to......be......condescending.

There&#39;s......an......old......adage.

The......intelligent ......make......the...... mistake ...... of...... assuming that...... everyone...... else ...... is ...... stupid.

The abortion issue is a real tough one. I am pro-choice in philosophy (bearing children is a responsibilty, not a divine gift), but in reality, I could not live with having one of my own aborted (and I&#39;m an agnostic- so no religious hangups, I just feel that it is wrong). I, however; can support my offspring, and I would not be contributing to the cycle of poverty (one of my nations #1 problems-IMO), my chosing to abort would simply be for my own convenience.

I would have to agree with Echidnas "head in the sand" approach to closing abortion clinics. Does abortion go away, no it doesn&#39;t, it just becomes more dangerous.

Will people stop having sex? Not as long as "men" exist.

I can understand religious people having a serious problem with sending money to support abortions, as this, in their minds, dooms the aborted fetus to Hell. Catholics are also instructed that birth control is "wrong", so how can they, in good concious support a President sending such aid?


Well, the problem is very serious, and my solution is quite straight forward. To avoid the whole issue of religion, I think the money should be funnelled to providing free hysterctomies or tubal ligations. You have 9 kids you can&#39;t support, time to clean out the plumbing. Women should be allowed to get tubal ligations at any time, but once they have had 2 children, this procedure is mandatory. Tough situations demand tough solutions. You don&#39;t want one after 2 kids, you are given a metal hanger and wished the best of luck.

Due to human rights in the US, this could never be enforced here (though I wish it could), but I think elsewhere, beggars cannot not afford to be choosers.

No Im not assuming everyone else is stupid at all. I was merely replying to this insult... err I mean post...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jpaul
Now I see the problem. I had assumed that English was your first language. My apologies

---

...by explaining what I meant as you obviously thought it was irrelevant or illogical.

Or do you really expect me not to defend myself when you start questioning my command of the English language? And isnt that a perfect example of being condescending?

Damn, we&#39;re well OT now... you sly old fox :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

No government&#39;s policy is based on ethics.

---

So why defend it then? If the UK Gvt was blackmailing other countries into doing its bidding (and it probably is) I would be just as harsh in my criticism.

Why do you feel the need to defend this policy of blackmail if you dont think its ethical? I would put it down to blind patriotism but I&#39;ve seen you criticise the US gvt before, so thats obviously not true in your case.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@2 July 2003 - 17:58


So why defend it then? If the UK Gvt was blackmailing other countries into doing its bidding (and it probably is) I would be just as harsh in my criticism.

Why do you feel the need to defend this policy of blackmail if you dont think its ethical? I would put it down to blind patriotism but I&#39;ve seen you criticise the US gvt before, so thats obviously not true in your case.

---

I was neither defending nor decrying, merely pointing out that no government in the world bases it&#39;s foreign policy on ethics.

What you call "blackmail" is nothing more than foreign aid. Every country disburses largess with an eye to strengthening alliances and furthering it&#39;s agenda. Why should the US be any different?



edit: spelling ( I thought it was "i before e except after c")

Quote:

---

was neither defending nor decrying, merely pointing out that no government in the world bases it&#39;s foriegn policy on ethics.

What you call "blackmail" is nothing more than foriegn aid. Every country disburses largess with an eye to strengthening alliances and furthering it&#39;s agenda. Why should the US be any different?

---

The problem is this.

"Furthering its agenda" = trying to weaken the ICC before its even begun.

Considering that the ICC is all about ensuring people cant commit atrocities and get away with it, its an outrage that the most powerful country in the world is out to destroy it. If the US thinks the ICC is flawed then they should try and change it. You cant deny they have the opportunity and the power to do so. I mean help us out a little here guys. The ICC would be a great achievement if it is executed correctly.

Clocker, JPaul, Hobbes:

We are all drunk and foaming at the mouth; we should forego posting until we&#39;re sober, and less hostile and insulting.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@3 July 2003 - 01:29
Clocker, JPaul, Hobbes:

We are all drunk and foaming at the mouth; we should forego posting until we&#39;re sober, and less hostile and insulting.

---

Frankly I am insulted by your hostility.

I may have to partake of a small libation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@2 July 2003 - 18:29
Clocker, JPaul, Hobbes:

We are all drunk and foaming at the mouth; we should forego posting until we&#39;re sober, and less hostile and insulting.

---

Party pooper.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
We are all drunk and foaming at the mouth; we should forego posting until we&#39;re sober, and less hostile and insulting.

---

I&#39;d prefer it if you kept posting crap of this nature actually, although it would be nice if you could stop sulking.

Also, dont insult clocker by putting him in the same boat as you. Your the one who consistently replies to my posts with childish insults motivated by personal dislike.

You&#39;ll notice clocker and I can vehemently disagree on one thread but we don&#39;t carry the bad feeling through to the next one. We also tend to stick to the topic at hand.

Its called maturity, and yes I am being purposefully condescending here, its very appropriate considering your last post.

Actually, I am just off my model post, my conclusion you are free to disagree with and it can be discussed.

1. Established my perspective, mentioning pertinent postives and negatives relevant to the topic.

2. Acknowledged the pressure that Bush is under due to his religion and constituants.

3. Stated the the consequences of his actions.

4. Concluded that the "cons" outweighed the "pros".

5. Proposed a solution.

6. Failed to resort to rhetoric by calling anyone a "babykiller".

I&#39;m feeling a little bit supirehyor, at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes
6. Failed to resort to rhetoric by calling anyone a "babykiller

---

Wooah&#33; Hold your horses&#33;&#33; No one called anyone a babykiller :lol: :lol: :lol:

The problem with JPauls argument was highlighted by showing that killing children could be justified if it was taken to its logical conclusion.

For what its worth (take a cheap shot here if you want j2k4) I actually liked your post for all the reasons you stated. Unfortunately its not typical of the anti-evilbagpuss brigade. (Woe is me&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol: )

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@2 July 2003 - 19:00


I&#39;m feeling a little bit supirehyor, at the moment.

---

It&#39;s those pleated pants.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+3 July 2003 - 02:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 3 July 2003 - 02:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
6. Failed to resort to rhetoric by calling anyone a "babykiller

---

Wooah&#33; Hold your horses&#33;&#33; No one called anyone a babykiller :lol: :lol: :lol:

The problem with JPauls argument was highlighted by showing that killing children could be justified if it was taken to its logical conclusion.

For what its worth (take a cheap shot here if you want j2k4) I actually liked your post for all the reasons you stated. Unfortunately its not typical of the anti-evilbagpuss brigade. (Woe is me&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol: )[/b][/quote]
I was actually talking about Myfiles, but really just to point out how exactly a discussion can tranform into "quibbles", post dissections and distortions.

I am medically not allowed to join a brigade because of back problems. ;)

Anyway, I am being taunted by the worm at the bottle of my tequila bottle and I need to go teach that boy some manners&#33;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+3 July 2003 - 02:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 3 July 2003 - 02:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@2 July 2003 - 19:00


I&#39;m feeling a little bit supirehyor, at the moment.

---

It&#39;s those pleated pants.[/b][/quote]
Wow, I actually meant that I was feeling up a little Eeyore. Good clean fun&#33;http://w1.401.telia.com/~u40101705/iorledsaen.jpghttp://people.freenet.de/damy_de/pooh.gruppe.gif

Wow, this was a great thread to read&#33;
I love it&#33;&#33;
JPaul, you are excellent my friend&#33;
I thought you said you weren&#39;t ever gonna join us?
Glad you have&#33;&#33;&#33;

You guys have hashed it out pretty good, so I&#39;m not going to comment on it except to say that I thought it had more to do with the US&#39;s soverignty.
I really haven&#39;t paid too close attention to the news today as I bought a new comp with a VIA mainboard and I&#39;m in an exceptionally good mood&#33; :D :D

What I wanna know is - Why are we sending troops to liberia??
Reallly, I&#39;m not kidding. :huh:
Have any of you ever played the board game called RISK?
It just seems we&#39;re spreading our forces out a little thin.

BTW, I am a Risk Master&#33;&#33; :ph34r:

Oh, one more thing, I don&#39;t have a spell checker installed just yet, so your gonna have to put up with my spelling.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+2 July 2003 - 19:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 2 July 2003 - 19:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
We are all drunk and foaming at the mouth; we should forego posting until we&#39;re sober, and less hostile and insulting.

---

I&#39;d prefer it if you kept posting crap of this nature actually, although it would be nice if you could stop sulking.

Also, dont insult clocker by putting him in the same boat as you. Your the one who consistently replies to my posts with childish insults motivated by personal dislike.

You&#39;ll notice clocker and I can vehemently disagree on one thread but we don&#39;t carry the bad feeling through to the next one. We also tend to stick to the topic at hand.

Its called maturity, and yes I am being purposefully condescending here, its very appropriate considering your last post.[/b][/quote]
EBP-

Your post was apropos of what, exactly?

Your name was undeniably absent from my post-you seem to have taken offence at this absence, and again are posting accusations of insults so as to be insulting yourself.

I would never insult Clocker (and he knows it) nor Hobbes, who you apparently have no affection for (nor urge to defend) as he has called you on the carpet in the past for your peculiar type of churlishness.

I do not sulk-anyone here will tell you.

I am likewise "aces" at sticking with the subject.

I have no time to waste "disliking" you EPB, though I have spent some of it disagreeing with you.

Now, if you will kindly excuse me, I must console Hobbes, as the fact you failed to mention him in your attempt to chide me has upset him greatly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@2 July 2003 - 23:49
Wow, this was a great thread to read&#33;
What I wanna know is - Why are we sending troops to liberia??
Reallly, I&#39;m not kidding. :huh:

---

Shock-

The greatness will no doubt continue, as we now have our world renamed and stand at the dawn of a new age", as it were. :lol: :lol: :lol: ;)

In light of this, why don&#39;t you start a new thread on the Liberian question? B)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@2 July 2003 - 20:00
Actually, I am just off my model post, my conclusion you are free to disagree with and it can be discussed.

1. Established my perspective, mentioning pertinent postives and negatives relevant to the topic.

2. Acknowledged the pressure that Bush is under due to his religion and constituants.

3. Stated the the consequences of his actions.

4. Concluded that the "cons" outweighed the "pros".

5. Proposed a solution.

6. Failed to resort to rhetoric by calling anyone a "babykiller".

I&#39;m feeling a little bit supirehyor, at the moment.

---

I hereby laud a sterling example of what constitutes a worthwhile post; Hobbes-I salute you-you provide a lesson for us all.

I am (as ever) astounded by your astuteness. :)