the war was not legal. it was not in defence of america or an ally. it was not about genocide and it was not sanctioned by the UN. therefore it is illegal.
Printable View
the war was not legal. it was not in defence of america or an ally. it was not about genocide and it was not sanctioned by the UN. therefore it is illegal.
The war was legal according to UN law. The UN failed to consistently enforce its doctrine, and this is definitely not the first time (Rwanda, 1994, anyone?). I disagree strongly with the war, but it wasn't "omg bush is teh war criminal!" that everyone says it is.
un law is international law. much like the human rights act. or is that void too? and that's why america is allowed to have a part of cuba dedicated to torturing people?
and rwanda failed mainly because of the countries in the UN. and that actually is america also. america failed rwanda as much as any other country. sat back and watched a million people cut down in 100 days. by far not the only country to blame. but up there with the rest of them. the UN is only as strong as it's members. and it's members including the US decided to watch a genocide.
and by breaking international law. not only is bush a war criminal but so is every us serviceman in iraq.
I don't recognize the UN. Nor should any rational person.
the un protects your fundamental human rights....... then again your country ignores them anyway and seems to enjoy torturing people. so meh ignore them because our country doesn't give a damn anyway.
Absolutely. The UN inconsistently applied its own law to Iraq, and failed to do anything about it. What the UN says now has become aQuote:
un law is international law.
What the hell does that have to do with anything?Quote:
much like the human rights act. or is that void too? and that's why america is allowed to have a part of cuba dedicated to torturing people?
AhahahahahaQuote:
and by breaking international law. not only is bush a war criminal but so is every us serviceman in iraq.
the un human rights act governs your human rights. ignore the un you ignore that. it has alot to do with whether you think the un has the right to judge. because when it comes down to it and you are tied to that chair in quantanamo or baghram the people that decide whether that is right or wrong is the un. the people that will try the men doing it to you is the un. the men supposed to protect you is the un. without them the human rights act fails (america ignores it and tortures people anyway).
iraq committed as many wrongs when it came to the un as america. wanna bomb manhattan for that?
and following orders is not an excuse when it comes to being a war criminal. taken part in an illegal action can be tried for illegal or not. it's part of the nuremburg principles.
Ah, yes. Smile, feel proud that despite working full time, some people can barley feed their families. Take heart that people get screwed and no one has an obligation to help them.Quote:
Darklady, take heart in knowing that you never held a gun to the rich and demanded to live in exchange for their prosperity. Smile, feel proud, know that you lived your life according to your own ability, not need.
Frankly, if it comes down to my (or anyone elses) survival, and someones right to have more money than they could hope to spend, I'm gonna go with life. Aren't conservatives all about "sanctity of life". Or does that just apply to fetuses?
I wouldn't know. I'm not a conservative.
And those people brought that on themselves. They should either get a new job - or not have a big family. And I'm not delusional about the term "rights" - I know that when people begin to tell me that I have an obligation to help others at my loss by right to run.
Aren't liberals all about human rights? Or does that only apply to the poor?
get a better job?
so if you're born into a poor family in a council estate with ignorant parents and surrounded by drugs and gangs. the schools not much better bad areas have bad schools. the education is worse the teachers aren't good and it is far harder. you can't gain extra help because your parents are too poor to buy extra tuition or study books. if your parents are divorced then it's a worse situation again. or if thy have alcohol, drug, mental or physical problems.
have bad parents and you are almost doomed to failure. the above doesn't apply to the rich. better schools, teachers, books and extra tuition = better grades = better job.
the rich have an easier time before they are even born. a foot up not brought on by skill or intelligence but their parents wallet.
most poor people round here don't have a big family. but they are destined to failure. and have no chance of getting a new job.
It's true that some people have luck on their side. However, in a free society (note: America doesn't necessarily fit the rule) a child would be fit to move up on his own ability. Don't put too much stock into socialization, either. I mean, sure, if you have bad parents you might not have the greatest aspirations right away, but only a fool wouldn't recognize that work (and working hard) can help your situation.
There is a giant difference between people who are down on their luck (in which case voluntary charity should go to) and the undeserving poor (such as those you described).
That's not a lack of compassion; that's reality. I'd be willing to help, but not at the point of a gun.
Another thing is that blaming a free society based on poverty is ridiculous; it neither augments it nor stops it. It allows the poor to move up if they are able, but does not put a dolt into a job he could not have gotten to based on ability. Do not attempt to change reality. There will always be lazy people who choose to be poor, and there will always be kids who are born into bad situations. Short of actual threats to them (such as abusive parents or drug abuse or places where the government should step in), they are free to rise as well. That's freedom. That's letting people live without Big Brother behind them. And that's the only just way a society can run.
AND DAMN YOU LIBERALS I'M NOT A CONSERVATIVE I'M LIBERTARIAN Y0 GET IT RIGHT
they are not free to move up the ladder without a good education. and poor kids parents aren't able to pay for that. so there are two choices. let the kids education stagnate no matter what his ability. or pay for it. one educated kid will pay for himself in the end as he will end up earning more and paying more taxes (returning what has been paid to him).
the other choice is to leave him in poorly funded education and watch as his ability stagnates and he leaves still part of the poverty cycle.
same with health.
I don't really see how governments should cure people from being poor. I merely say that let people be housed and healthy. Doing this will save us in multple ways imo. That is the only part of this conversation I am interested in.
As for people being poor, and unable to provide, that is BS. Unless you are disabled, one full time job at mininum wage is enough money to raise a family on. The trick is learning how to budget, and learn to find all the resources you need. *Children easily can obtain WIC, and health insurance in most states. I don't see being poor as a bad thing. America's standard of poor still allows you to have a full stomach, and an apartment. It can always be worse.
The only huge expence that I know screws a lot of people over, are cars. There are tons of resources out there to help you out in car crisis. Besides all this, I must also say budget your welfare. Learn more about it, and how long you will have it etc. That is what we have social workers for. (Granted I have heard/know of a few whom are obviously job coasters)
Bottom line is simply keeping citizens sheltered, fed, and healthy is a great thing for a government to do (as per my beliefs). Again, I do not mean anything lavish, or too sub standard. Simply the resources to get them on thier feet again, or to start with.
but that view bipper just feeds the poverty cycle. if all you can achieve is minimum wage then you aren't acheiving the american dream. and it's not a question of ability or laziness it's a question of education. quality free education at that.
this way what matters most in what you can achieve is not the education that you're parents can afford. but by your ability and intelligence.
So, if america doesn't fit, then your point is invalid.Quote:
America doesn't necessarily fit the rule)
Not only that, but minimum wage isn't always enough to live on.Quote:
if all you can achieve is minimum wage then you aren't acheiving the american dream.
I agree. Unfortunatly, our government doesn't always do that. It's fine to say "get a job," but what if there are no jobs available? What if you have young kids, and cant afford child care? What if you have a job, and an education, but still don't have enough? I don't want the government to give me a free ride. I just want a chance at a decent life. And I'm not willing to suffer because some people think I don't deserve anything better.Quote:
Bottom line is simply keeping citizens sheltered, fed, and healthy is a great thing for a government to do