# Is the US becoming a "rogue state"?



## PeachMonkey (Sep 30, 2004)

"Despite its pledges to stay engaged with the world, the United States is gradually retreating from the UN-sponsored system of international law, having ratified only about 29 percent of existing multilateral agreements, according to a new study.

The report, unveiled by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy -- a farmers' lobbying group -- on the eve of Thursday's foreign policy debate between President George W. Bush and his Democratic challenger John Kerry, found "a steady decline" in the US government's support for multilateral accords, particularly those covering human and labor rights and security issues.

"This retreat from the UN system makes it much harder for the Bush administration to lead at the international level," said Kristin Dawkins, a vice president of the institute. "It has set a dangerous precedent that other countries could follow in areas such as arms trade and nuclear weapons."

The widely-publicized Bush decisions to withdraw US support from the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites) on Climate Change, abandon the US-Russian Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and shun the International Criminal Court are just the latest manifestations of a generally skeptical attitude in Washington toward international law, the report pointed out.

Over the years, the United States has ratified only 14 out of 162 "active treaties" put together by the International Labour Organization and only two of the eight "core" UN conventions protecting the rights of workers, according to the study.

It has approved just three of 11 major environmental treaties, five out of the 12 human rights treaties promoted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and nearly half of the 23 treaties regulating intellectual property rights and related technologies.

As for the 10 treaties managed by the Food and Agriculture Organization, the US Senate has ratified only six of them, the report said.

Other international accords shunned by the United States include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which has been approved by 178 other countries, and the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

Some international accords have received only partial or conditional approval. The US government has ratified the first Geneva Convention governing wartime behavior, but not its two related protocols, the study pointed out.

This trend "predates the presidency of George W. Bush," the report acknowledged, but the current administration "has accelerated" it.

Surprisingly, many American voters are simply unaware of these foreign policy positions, or sincerely believe that the opposite is true, according to an opinion poll made public Wednesday by the University of Maryland.

Eighty-four percent of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that he favored including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements, the survey found.

Sixty-nine percent of them thought the United States was a party to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, while 66 percent believed Washington participated in the International Criminal Court.

Despite all the Republican bashing of the Kyoto protocol, 51 percent of their supporters still thought the United States was in favor of it."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1512&e=1&u=/afp/20040930/wl_afp/us_un_treaties


----------



## Trent (Sep 30, 2004)

Just for discussion, how can a sovereign nation be a rogue?  What I'm asking is, what is your, or their, defiinition of a rogue?  A nation that doesn't fall into lockstep with the wishes of the UN which is predominately comprised of self-serving small nations trying to press their agenda for their own advantage?

The above article is indeed interesting, but is only a thin veneer on the issues.  Nothing of the history or reasons for any of the decisions by anyone is supplied.  It is transparently biased, and only someone prone to agree with the near conclusions provided, or knowledgeable on very selective facts while ignoring other facts that the reader (and author) is emotionally opposed to regardless of merit would find it worthwhile as an informative piece.

I'm also weary of the term "international law" being used improperly.  There are only treaties between sovereign nations that are agreements.  There is no overseeing governing body which can officially, and through it's own action, enforce laws of it's own throughout the world on every country in the world with civil and/or criminal penalties.

Now I've said it.  I feel better.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 30, 2004)

> Just for discussion, how can a sovereign nation be a rogue?


If "sovereign" refers to "self-governing," and "rogue" refers to "solitary and deceitful," the terms are certainly not mutually exclusive. Iraq used to be referred to as a rogue nation.


----------



## Trent (Oct 1, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> If "sovereign" refers to "self-governing," and "rogue" refers to "solitary and deceitful," the terms are certainly not mutually exclusive. Iraq used to be referred to as a rogue nation.



"If" those definitions were true, they are not mutually exclusive.  Iraq is a good example for Gulf War II (I was in during Gulf War I) as was referred to as a rogue nation for the original pretense to go in.  When that wasn't enough, WMD's were decided to be in the country.  Many people don't think we should have been there for the second trip.  

My point is, ultimately, all nations are solitary by law and design, but can elect to join in the world community voluntarily.  Voluntarily is the key, and when they withdraw, cannot be considered rogue, as there is no obligation to be there at all for any reason.

As far as being deceitful, point to one nation or government that hasn't been, isn't now, or won't be in the future.  You can't.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 1, 2004)

Looks to me like the article's basically true...after all, you can get on this forum any time and see lots and lots of posts by Bush supporters who simply don't know what's actually going on--and who, much worse than that, refuse to find out, or when confronted with realities they don't approve of, turn abusive.

And--different issue altogether--the description of the UN just above is just plain wonky. "Predominately comprised of self-serving small nations trying to press their agenda for their own advantage?" Say what? 

There's this thing? In the UN? Called the Security Council? They run the joint? Its permanent members are the US, Great Britain, China, Russia, France?

I also see that once again, we've got the same old tired argument in favor of, "we should do whatever we want, whenever we want..." you know; the pseudo-cynicism argument...everybody does it anyway, so why shouldn't we?

Uh...hate to cite moral values and American principles, but we're supposed to be better than that? It's partly how we justified going into Iraq?


----------



## Trent (Oct 1, 2004)

Personally, I think we should not do whatever we want as a nation, and should be better than that, too.  However, I think we should be held to the same standard of everyone else and not a higher one, or a lower one.  

I also enjoy playing Devil's advocate on any issue.  I really do believe in an open mind, not just one that agrees with me.  My mind can be changed, but you better be more informed than myself on a particular issue to accomplish it and not merely appeal to some preconceived notion. The article put forth merely parrots what every other mainstream media outlet spews forth.

I am by no means a Bush supporter.  

I do not respect half-truths from any source.  I have only contempt for lies from any source.

Your condescension in your UN Security Council reply is noted despite the fact it doesn't change my initial statement.  The UN is a voluntary membership.  The large nations that are current permanent members of the council do not reflect the vast membership of the UN.  They also don't reflect the temporary members.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 1, 2004)

Fine, though I guess I'm old-fashioned enough to still wanna go with that whole Lincoln, "last best hope of mankind," thingy.

Please provide some sort of evidence for your curious claim--a claim that I have frequently heard from the Pat Robertsons, Rush Limbaughs, and FOX commentators of the world--that the UN, despite being a) based in New York, b) nearly entirely financed by countries such as the United States, c) administered by a Security Council dominated by the United States, Great Britain, Russia, France and China, is in fact, "predominately comprised of self-serving small nations trying to press their agenda for their own advantage."

I suspect that the article was ruefully pointing out that given our actions under the Bush Admin, our country all too easily fits our own definition of a, "rogue state."


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

The United States was unlawfully attacked on Septemer 11th by self-admitted terrorists led by Bin Laden who was politically and finacially aided by Sadam Hussein, et al; the US has been complying with the rule of law to stem the terrorist threat to our nation.  And in spite of dealing with ruthless, lawless, and uncivilized terrorists, the US has managed to remain within the bounds of decency and the law while waging war, with our reserves and national guard, against a dedicated and brutal outlaw army.  The USA hardly deserves to be considered a "rogue state" and that is just a liberal excercise in propaganda and sophistic relativism, and in my opinion, an act of sedetion.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> The United States was unlawfully attacked on Septemer 11th by self-admitted terrorists led by Bin Laden who was politically and finacially aided by Sadam Hussein, et al;


This is a completely unsubstantiated claim.  I challenge you to find ANY evidence to support this.





			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> The USA hardly deserves to be considered a "rogue state" and that is just a liberal excercise in propaganda and sophistic relativism, and in my opinion, an act of sedetion.


Really?  You would charge someone excercising their right to free speech with sedition?  Sounds like an extreme right wing exercise in propaganda.  Once again, Patrick, please provide sources for your claims.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> The United States was unlawfully attacked on Septemer 11th by self-admitted *terrorists led by Bin Laden who was politically and finacially aided by Sadam Hussein, et al;* the US has been complying with the rule of law to stem the terrorist threat to our nation. And in spite of dealing with ruthless, lawless, and uncivilized terrorists, *the US has managed to remain within the bounds of decency and the law while waging war*, with our reserves and national guard, against a dedicated and brutal outlaw army. The USA hardly deserves to be considered a "rogue state" *and that is just a liberal excercise in propaganda and sophistic relativism, and in my opinion, an act of sedetion*.


There is no evidence linking Bin Laden to Saddam.  If you have some, I'd like to see it.  No-one can find the evidence.

Really? Torturing and raping prisoners is within the bounds of decency and law?  How interesting.  I completely disagree.

Sedition?  I call it free speech, hug the First Amendment, and, on top of that, calling it like it is.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> There is no evidence linking Bin Laden to Saddam. If you have some, I'd like to see it. No-one can find the evidence.
> 
> Really? Torturing and raping prisoners is within the bounds of decency and law? How interesting. I completely disagree.
> 
> Sedition? I call it free speech, hug the First Amendment, and, on top of that, calling it like it is.


Hi Feisty Mouse,

"no evidence linking Bin Laden to Saddam"??  Huh???  What is wrong with you?

President George W. Bush, the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, and most other Americans are extremely aware of former President Bill Clinton's defense secretary Bill Cohen's written and documented letter of Saddam Hussein to Bin Laden that "Al-quida will work cooperatively with the government of Iraq" source WASHINGTON POST 1998 article by Roland Scarborough.

"Torturing and raping prisoners is within the bounds of decency and law?" of course not Feisty Mouse, that is why we did not do that.  There is no evidence of torture or rape (except of Jessica Lynch, who was tortured and ganged raped at the hands of Iraqi soldiers!).
There is no evidence of US torture and rape!  Show me the evidence, cite your sources, where is you proof for such a remarkable statement?  Pantys on a mans face is not torture, nudity is not torture, and a black sack over a man's head is not torture - so show me your proof!

"Sedition? I call it free speech..." and I was barred from Martialtalk.com for exercising my 'right' to free speech, but when screaming liberals, like fat slob Michael Moore, blatantly break the law - sedition - its free speech? HUH?

I want some precise and educational answers from you Feisty Mouse!  Right Now!


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Hi Feisty Mouse,
> 
> "no evidence linking Bin Laden to Saddam"?? Huh??? What is wrong with you?


Oops.  This was most certainly an error on your part.



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> President George W. Bush, the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, and most other Americans are extremely aware of former President Bill Clinton's defense secretary Bill Cohen's written and documented letter of Saddam Hussein to Bin Laden that "Al-quida will work cooperatively with the government of Iraq" source WASHINGTON POST 1998 article by Roland Scarborough.


Find it if you believe it exists.  Show it to me.  I think you're hallucinating.



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> "Torturing and raping prisoners is within the bounds of decency and law?" of course not Feisty Mouse, that is why we did not do that. There is no evidence of torture or rape (except of Jessica Lynch, who was tortured and ganged raped at the hands of Iraqi soldiers!).
> There is no evidence of US torture and rape! Show me the evidence, cite your sources, where is you proof for such a remarkable statement? Pantys on a mans face is not torture, nudity is not torture, and a black sack over a man's head is not torture - so show me your proof!


Have a look at this, then.  It's in this thread.  While you are at it, read the entire Geneva Convention, and get back to me with your analysis.  I'm sure your interpretation should prove to be most entertaining.



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> "Sedition? I call it free speech..." and I was barred from Martialtalk.com for exercising my 'right' to free speech, but when screaming liberals, like fat slob Michael Moore, blatantly break the law - sedition - its free speech? HUH?!


More evidence of your inability to understand the reality that surrounds you.  This is a private website, Patrick.  You are priviledged to be here.  Your constitutional rights do not apply.  Which brings me to another good point.  Perhaps you ought to read the stickies at the top of the forum again.  Read them VERY carefully.



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> I want some precise and educational answers from you Feisty Mouse! Right Now!


I am sure you will get them, sir.  I look forward to what follows.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Oops. This was most certainly an error on your part.
> 
> Find it if you believe it exists. Show it to me. I think you're hallucinating.
> 
> ...


You need to bone up on American history and American jurisprudence Flatlander!


----------



## Sapper6 (Oct 4, 2004)

all this political discussion crap is pointless.  this argument and thousands like it will go back and forth, on and on for infinity.  why is there a need for this here?  the only thing reading these posts (and others alike) have compelled me to do go find my BOB beat the holy crap out of, just out of pure frustration.

oh wait, i could call that training :idunno:   maybe this is good then  

oh well, another good board polluted w/ political non-sense :asian: 

be done with it people...concede to disagreement, quit arguing, and get off your *** and commence w/ training :ultracool


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> all this political discussion crap is pointless. this argument and thousands like it will go back and forth, on and on for infinity. why is there a need for this here? the only thing reading these posts (and others alike) have compelled me to do go find my BOB beat the holy crap out of, just out of pure frustration.
> 
> oh wait, i could call that training :idunno: maybe this is good then
> 
> ...


If you don't want to play, get out of the sandbox.  What do you suppose the entire point of this forum section is?  Contribute, or do not.  The choice is yours.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> all this political discussion crap is pointless. this argument and thousands like it will go back and forth, on and on for infinity. why is there a need for this here? the only thing reading these posts (and others alike) have compelled me to do go find my BOB beat the holy crap out of, just out of pure frustration.
> 
> oh wait, i could call that training :idunno: maybe this is good then
> 
> ...


Do you know what is worse than a dumb jock? - A dumb martial artist!  It is psychologically interesting to read what kind of political, philosophical, and historical distortions some of these martial artists hold.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> You need to bone up on American history and American jurisprudence Flatlander!


Good answer.  Very well structured.  I am certainly impressed with your analysis.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Good answer. Very well structured. I am certainly impressed with your analysis.


Put on your glasses and read the whole thing!


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Put on your glasses and read the whole thing!


Gee, you're right.  I guess you haven't figured out the forum software yet.  You cleverly hid it all inside my own quote.  Give me a minute.


----------



## Bester (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> The United States was unlawfully attacked on Septemer 11th by self-admitted terrorists led by Bin Laden who was politically and finacially aided by Sadam Hussein, et al; the US has been complying with the rule of law to stem the terrorist threat to our nation.  And in spite of dealing with ruthless, lawless, and uncivilized terrorists, the US has managed to remain within the bounds of decency and the law while waging war, with our reserves and national guard, against a dedicated and brutal outlaw army.  The USA hardly deserves to be considered a "rogue state" and that is just a liberal excercise in propaganda and sophistic relativism, and in my opinion, an act of sedetion.


  Oh My God!
  You are so wrong, I would laugh but it is just not funny.
  * Bin Laden never admited being behind it. He admired it, but never say he did it. He's still a scum bag though.
 * The money trail does not lead to Iraq.  Close though, Try Saudi Arabia (Where most of the hijackers were from). Ladens a Saudi.  So-Dumb couldn't stand Osamas goals.
 * You obviously never head of the abuses and now murders being brought to light in both Cuba and Iraq that are pinned on US troops.
 * sedition :  "an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government" Yup, you're totallt right there, not.

  I would call you an utter imbecile, but that would be a compliment.
 Why don't you go read some of the information in this forum and expand your world. Or are you too busy being booted from forum after forum to linger long enough to read more?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> I provided the data, you look it up - President Bush did!


Wrong, try again. Shall I define source provision for you?


			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> I agree that Jessica Lynch being ganged raped and having her bones broken by Iraqi soldiers constitutes torture, no argument here.


No disagreement here either. Unfortunately, you missed the point, however I am not surprised. Common troll tactic.



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> My Constitutional Rights do not apply to Martialtalk? QUOTE]That is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

Bester said:
			
		

> Oh My God!
> You are so wrong, I would laugh but it is just not funny.
> * Bin Laden never admited being behind it. He admired it, but never say he did it. He's still a scum bag though.
> * The money trail does not lead to Iraq. Close though, Try Saudi Arabia (Where most of the hijackers were from). Ladens a Saudi. So-Dumb couldn't stand Osamas goals.
> ...


Bin Laden never admited it?  He was on an Al-quaida video bragging all about it!  The WASHINGTON POST in 1998 printed a letter implicating Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.
Are you a typical Orwellian fascist who makes a 'non-person' out of someone who threatens you with the truth?  Are you going to ban me from Martialtalk for being a 'whistleblower' just like in corporate American?  Give me a break.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

:rofl:


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> There is no evidence linking Bin Laden to Saddam. If you have some, I'd like to see it. No-one can find the evidence.
> 
> Really? Torturing and raping prisoners is within the bounds of decency and law? How interesting. I completely disagree.
> 
> Sedition? I call it free speech, hug the First Amendment, and, on top of that, calling it like it is.


Hi Feisty,

I'm still waiting for your response, if you can provide one.


----------



## Bester (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick, or whatever your name is this week,

Saying "I applaud it" is not the same as "I did it".
I am glad that the Post had that connection in 1998. Maybe if Shrubaya had been reading the local papers we could have prevented a few thousand deaths in NYC, including some friends of mine. But it didn't and while I want blood, I want the right blood. That blood is Saudi, not Iraqi. You sir are a damn fool at best if you believe otherwise.

And, I can not ban you from anything. I am not a moderator.
Then again, neither are you.
But you are a troll, and a rather obvious one at that.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

Bester said:
			
		

> Patrick, or whatever your name is this week,
> 
> Saying "I applaud it" is not the same as "I did it".
> I am glad that the Post had that connection in 1998. Maybe if Shrubaya had been reading the local papers we could have prevented a few thousand deaths in NYC, including some friends of mine. But it didn't and while I want blood, I want the right blood. That blood is Saudi, not Iraqi. You sir are a damn fool at best if you believe otherwise.
> ...


Maybe if that scumbag Bill Clinton had read that article or paid a little more attention to his secretary of defense rather than to his little bimbo there would be no Americans dying in Afghanistan and Iraq right now ( and Jessica Lynch would never have been raped and tortured).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Hi Feisty Mouse,
> 
> "no evidence linking Bin Laden to Saddam"?? Huh??? What is wrong with you?
> 
> President George W. Bush, the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, and most other Americans are extremely aware of former President Bill Clinton's defense secretary Bill Cohen's written and documented letter of Saddam Hussein to Bin Laden that "Al-quida will work cooperatively with the government of Iraq" source WASHINGTON POST 1998 article by Roland Scarborough.


So you are saying Saddam was in charge of Al Quida? Interesting.
Osama wanted to make a deal with Saddam, who said no.
He did not like Osamas view of Islam.



> "Torturing and raping prisoners is within the bounds of decency and law?" of course not Feisty Mouse, that is why we did not do that. There is no evidence of torture or rape (except of Jessica Lynch, who was tortured and ganged raped at the hands of Iraqi soldiers!).
> There is no evidence of US torture and rape! Show me the evidence, cite your sources, where is you proof for such a remarkable statement? Pantys on a mans face is not torture, nudity is not torture, and a black sack over a man's head is not torture - so show me your proof!


What say we do that to you and see how you feel about it afterwards? Those actions are in violation of accepted international law and treatys, treaties that this country is a member of. I posted some linkes in here on those laws. I suggest you read them.



> "Sedition? I call it free speech..." and I was barred from Martialtalk.com for exercising my 'right' to free speech, but when screaming liberals, like fat slob Michael Moore, blatantly break the law - sedition - its free speech? HUH?


No, you were -suspended-, not -banned-.
You were suspended for violating our sniping policy. You are currently at risk of violating several other rules as well. Consider this a warning.

In addition, regardless of what you may incorrectly think, your right to "Free Speech" does NOT exist here.

*As to "Free Speech":
Freedom of Speech is a worthy concept and one which we support wholeheartedly. Indeed it is one of the founding principles of MartialTalk. However, it is important to understand the limitations of this principle and not to abuse it.

You must understand that, especially in regard to website discussion forums, the argument "What about my right to free speech?" simply doesn't hold water either legally or morally.

Free speech does not give you the right to publicly say whatever you like -- it actually has many limitations. There are more laws governing what you can't say than what you can.

To put it bluntly, the only rights you have at MartialTalk are the rights we decide to issue. This is our website and we run it in the way we believe is most appropriate to facilitate our goals.

There is usually a way to express your opinion without breaking the rules or offending anyone. Sometimes you just have to work a bit harder to make it happen!

From our Rules:
"A member who is rude, excessively negative, or disruptive may receive a warning or may be suspended or banned immediately. Suspending and banning is done at the discretion of the administration team. "
*

Am I Clear?




> I want some precise and educational answers from you Feisty Mouse! Right Now!


She does not have to answer you. Your answers lie in the links FlatLander and others have indicated. If you can not take the time to look, that is not ours or her problem.

Good Day.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> So you are saying Saddam was in charge of Al Quida? Interesting.
> Osama wanted to make a deal with Saddam, who said no.
> He did not like Osamas view of Islam.
> 
> ...


Hi,

Are you saying I cannot say that I do not believe the US is becoming a "rogue state", that I support President Bush, that I am a registered Republican, that I am a member of the Massachusetts Young Republicans, that I support our Massachusetts republican Governor Mitt Romney; and that forced busing  and affirmative action is disgustingly RACIST as can be?  That is not right.


----------



## Bester (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Maybe if that scumbag Bill Clinton had read that article or paid a little more attention to his secretary of defense rather than to his little bimbo there would be no Americans dying in Afghanistan and Iraq right now ( and Jessica Lynch would never have been raped and tortured).


 Yes, and maybe if Bush Sr. had finished the job the first time, we would not be in Iraq now.  Then again, maybe if the CIA had not trained him, he would not have become as big a threat as he did.

 Where is your information that says Lynch was raped and tortured?
 The last I saw, she was out the whole time and that no mention of sexual assault had been found. My information is out of date however.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

Bester said:
			
		

> Yes, and maybe if Bush Sr. had finished the job the first time, we would not be in Iraq now. Then again, maybe if the CIA had not trained him, he would not have become as big a threat as he did.
> 
> Where is your information that says Lynch was raped and tortured?
> The last I saw, she was out the whole time and that no mention of sexual assault had been found. My information is out of date however.


Hi Bester,

Jessica Lynch's psychiatrist released a statement that there was anal and vaginal penetration and bone breakage 'after' the time of capture.

Also, Bush sr. had nothing to do with eight years of messed up liberal Clinton administration, under which Bin Laden stated on video tape he spent five years planning the 911 attacks.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> Are you saying I cannot say that I do not believe the US is becoming a "rogue state", that I support President Bush, that I am a registered Republican, that I am a member of the Massachusetts Young Republicans, that I support our Massachusetts republican Governor Mitt Romney; and that forced busing and affirmative action is disgustingly RACIST as can be? That is not right.


That is not what I said. You are entitled to your opinion. 
But I personally find it to be somewhat 'uninformed' as have others here.

You are entitled to it however. It is the expression of it which will put you at odds against our rules.

"You are an *******"
"You are lacking in information"

1 will be seen as an opinion, the other will get you some time-off.

I'll let you folks hash the rest of this out, I'm watching RAW (which is so far proving to be more informative than the last debate)


----------



## Bester (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Hi Bester,
> 
> Jessica Lynch's psychiatrist released a statement that there was anal and vaginal penetration and bone breakage 'after' the time of capture.
> 
> Also, Bush sr. had nothing to do with eight years of messed up liberal Clinton administration, under which Bin Laden stated on video tape he spent five years planning the 911 attacks.


 Thank you.
I will look into that.

Regardless however of any violations of international convention, that does not excuse the US from its own violations which have been documented over the 3 years since 9/11.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Bin Laden never admited it?  He was on an Al-quaida video bragging all about it!



For what it's worth, Bin Laden was praising the attacks, but never claimed responsibility.



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> The WASHINGTON POST in 1998 printed a letter implicating Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.



And sources from the 9/11 Commission through the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, have noted that Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden had no important ties.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180176/

I know Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity aren't likely to point this stuff out, but it always helps to expand your horizons.



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Are you a typical Orwellian fascist who makes a 'non-person' out of someone who threatens you with the truth?



It's pretty clear that you don't even know what the word fascist means.

You also can't define the word "sedition", apparently.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

FM talk radio 96.9  Very informative.  And yes, bin laden did claim responsibility for the 911 attacks, and even bragged about it on video. Thank God for George W. Bush!  Lesson learned: Never attack the United States during a republican administration!  The attacks were planned under the Clinton/Gore administration, which their secretary of defense Cohen warned them about with the documented evidence of the Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein collaboration.  Not only did Clinton deserved to be impeached by the republicans, he should have been shot for derilection of duty!



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, Bin Laden was praising the attacks, but never claimed responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> FM talk radio 96.9  Very informative.



As much as I'd like to fire up my magical Massachusetts-to-Indiana radio, I'm sure I can listen to cryptofascist nutbags on my local dial.



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> And yes, bin laden did claim responsibility for the 911 attacks, and even bragged about it on video.



I'm pretty sure he didn't claim responsibility.  Can you produce a transcript?



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> The attacks were planned under the Clinton/Gore administration, which their secretary of defense Cohen warned them about with the documented evidence of the Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein collaboration.



First off, the article you claim to support your argument was in the Washington "Times", not the Washington "Post".  See:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

Second, there is no new information in this article.  It was known that Al Qaeda operatives and Saddam Hussein met.  It is also known (and has been shown by the 9/11 Commission, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, and even Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld) that Iraq and Al Qaeda had no significant ties, and did *not collaborate on 9/11*.

Why are you so fixated on this one piece of information, and so unwilling to face the mountain of additional evidence?  

Wait, I think I already know the answer to that question.  (Whoops, hope I'm not impinging on your "free speech" rights!)



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Not only did Clinton deserved to be impeached by the republicans, he should have been shot for derilection of duty!



Which Federal statute gives anyone the right to execute former President Clinton for "derilection" of duty?


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

Here in Boston and the contiguous 'Peoples Republic of Cambridge' I have a dozen radio stations to choose for left-wing moronic dirt-ball Michael Moore seditious propaganda all day long.





			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> As much as I'd like to fire up my magical Massachusetts-to-Indiana radio, I'm sure I can listen to cryptofascist nutbags on my local dial.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Under the sedition laws, the commander in chief of the armed forces can be shot for dereliction of duty.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Under the sedition laws, the commander in chief of the armed forces can be shot for dereliction of duty.


According to www.wikipedia.com , 





> Both the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act were repealed in 1921.


 on this page.

Nice try, though.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> seditious propaganda all day long.



se·di·tion n.
   1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
   2. Insurrection; rebellion.

Disagreeing with the administration does not equal inciting rebellion.  Calling for people to vote out the criminals in our administration does not equal inciting insurrection.



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> I'm pretty certain he did. Can you show he didn't?



Actually, it looks like he did claim responsibility:

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Under the sedition laws, the commander in chief of the armed forces can be shot for dereliction of duty.



Wow... are you really talking about the Sedition Act of 1798, that patently un-American piece of tripe which has been used by cowards and scoundrels to reinforce their power? 



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> THANKS FOR CONFIRMING MY INFORMATION!



Actually, if you *read* what I posted, I gave further proof which discounted your assertion that Hussein and Al Qaeda collaborated on 9/11.

By the way, nothing in the sedition statutes mentions executing the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.  In fact, those statues *bolster* the power of the executive branch.


----------



## Seig (Oct 4, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Which Federal statute gives anyone the right to execute former President Clinton for "derilection" of duty?


A little unknown fact is that as Commander in Chief, the President is accountable to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. While that has, to the best of my knowledge, never been enforced, anyone who has served in the United States Military as a commissioned officer and has received any type of seperation other than dishonorable can be recalled to active duty at any time via the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. Under current US law, tradition, and precedent, could Clinton be shot for his dereliction? No, but he could have been impeached and held criminally accountable; then again, so could every president we have ever had.....


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 5, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> No, but he could have been impeached and held criminally accountable; then again, so could every president we have ever had.....


He was.
He wasn't.

Which, of course, is a bit different than the treatment every other president has received.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 5, 2004)

Hey, Mr. Skerry--you should really be a lot more worried about the black helicopters, and the buildup of Soviet military vehicles in Michigan coupled with the Chinese takeover of the Port of Long Beach.

Sheesh, it's like you never even SAW "Red Dawn," or considered the rise of the Antichrist Kofi Annan through the Satan-dominated UN.

Yours in the fight against floridation, UNICEF, and sex ed,
R.M. Robertson


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 5, 2004)

Uhhh, right.  :bs1:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 5, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Hi Feisty Mouse,
> 
> "no evidence linking Bin Laden to Saddam"??  Huh???  What is wrong with you?
> 
> ...



"Patrick", I think you need to show a little bit more respect if you want to have an intelligent dialogue.  If you are just interested in trolling, then by all means, yell and scream.  (I find it funny that you make demands on me, but would not answer questions directed at you in other threads.)

Others here have already dealt with you and your "free speech" rights.  Michael Moore has not broken the law, and furthermore, he does not post on this private forum.  You are allowed to say anything publicly is you have evidence - if it is not libel or slander.  You seem to wave "sedition" and "terrorism" around a lot as words almost as heinous to you as "the l-word".  If you could use them intelligently, that would be something.

US soldiers have been documented torturing Iraqi prisoners.  To deny knowledge of that is to truly, willfully stick your head in the sand.  Find your own sources - your tactic is to repeat right-wing facist rantings, and then demand that others (as others have already done here in this thread) provide evidence.


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 5, 2004)

MT MOD NOTE:

Please keep the discussion polite and respectful.  The moderation team understands that these are sensitive issues, but please take care to word your responses in a way that is respectful to other thread participants.

Thank you

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 5, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> According to www.wikipedia.com , on this page.
> 
> Nice try, though.


Wikipedia?  A questionable open source.


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 5, 2004)

perhaps you could quote some alternate information from a source you consider more reputable?


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 5, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> "Patrick", I think you need to show a little bit more respect if you want to have an intelligent dialogue. If you are just interested in trolling, then by all means, yell and scream. (I find it funny that you make demands on me, but would not answer questions directed at you in other threads.)
> 
> Others here have already dealt with you and your "free speech" rights. Michael Moore has not broken the law, and furthermore, he does not post on this private forum. You are allowed to say anything publicly is you have evidence - if it is not libel or slander. You seem to wave "sedition" and "terrorism" around a lot as words almost as heinous to you as "the l-word". If you could use them intelligently, that would be something.
> 
> US soldiers have been documented torturing Iraqi prisoners. To deny knowledge of that is to truly, willfully stick your head in the sand. Find your own sources - your tactic is to repeat right-wing facist rantings, and then demand that others (as others have already done here in this thread) provide evidence.


Your condescending and patronizing attitude is truly annoying. I have not seen any 'documented evidence' of any torture by US soldiers or citizens against captured terrorists - that is the truth! What I have seen are pictures of naked men (not torture), men wearing women's panties (not torture) or a man with a hood over his head with wires tied to his wrist, and since no electricity was running through those wires, or anything else, that was not torture. The _onus probandi _is on you to prove there was torture, not merely to repeat unsubstantiated allegations by the liberal media! 

Private England is going to a court martial, and what is her defense? She was taught methods of interogation by the U.S. Army and she applied those methods, she tortured no one! She used the same methods on bloody terrorists that are used in U.S. prisons for discipline and unruly prisoner control, no torture involved. So it appears you have a loose definition of torture as well as racism and fascism.

As far as respect goes, I haven't been the greatest recipient of respect since I began contributing to martialtalk.com, and I always return the favor - you disrespect me, I disrespect you! But in this Orwellian madhouse that means punishing the victim with a weeks suspension!

So go scold someone else.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 5, 2004)

No-one else seems to need scolding around these parts.... :idunno: 

"The liberal media" is a joke.  That has been discussed in other threads.  

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/icrc_iraq.pdf

Enjoy yourself.



> But in this Orwellian madhouse that means punishing the victim with a weeks suspension!


Why keep contributing if you truly believe this is a madhouse?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 5, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Your condescending and patronizing attitude is truly annoying. I have not seen any 'documented evidence' of any torture by US soldiers or citizens against captured terrorists - that is the truth! What I have seen are pictures of naked men (not torture), men wearing women's panties (not torture) or a man with a hood over his head with wires tied to his wrist, and since no electricity was running through those wires, or anything else, that was not torture. The _onus probandi _is on you to prove there was torture, not merely to repeat unsubstantiated allegations by the liberal media!
> 
> Private England is going to a court martial, and what is her defense? She was taught methods of interogation by the U.S. Army and she applied those methods, she tortured no one! She used the same methods on bloody terrorists that are used in U.S. prisons for discipline and unruly prisoner control, no torture involved. So it appears you have a loose definition of torture as well as racism and fascism.
> 
> ...



Mr Skerry,

I would have to disagree about torture. Someone of a very religous mind, who has been striped naked in front of a woman or women, can be torture. Torture is in the mind as well as in the body.

As to methods of interrogation, I would think this is not standard practice, yet I could be wrong, not knowing her personal training history.

As to respect, if you have had problems, from people, then you may use the report to moderator function to report a post. Do not reply and do not bait them. Just let them post and you continue to be on topic, and maybe respect will be given in your mind. I do not know, what happened previously, nor what you consider disrespectful.

Just my thoughts and some information.

:asian:


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 5, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> I have not seen any 'documented evidence' of any torture by US soldiers or citizens against captured terrorists - that is the truth!



Try reading the ICRC report Feisty posted.  I also recommend you check out this post:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=243089&highlight=torture#post243089

...which discusses the various legal bases for why the acts committed at Abu Ghraib (as well as Guantanamo Bay and other locales) qualify as torture, and why such acts are illegal.



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> So it appears you have a loose definition of torture as well as racism and fascism.



Could you please define fascism for us, since you use the term so often?  Thanks.



			
				Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> But in this Orwellian madhouse that means punishing the victim with a weeks suspension!



Which of Orwell's works have you actually read?  Thanks.h


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 5, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Why keep contributing if you truly believe this is a madhouse?



Does the word "troll" ring any bells, Miss Mouse?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 5, 2004)

Hey, I've got a hypothetical. Why don't we grab Mr. Skerry off the street, tape his hands and feet up, pull a bag over his head, hold him incommunicado for, say a year, respond to questions about his whereabouts by saying that Mr. Skerry, who we may or may not be holding, isn't subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention because he might be an "enemy combatant," deprive him of sleep, tie his hand and feet together and leave him squatting for, say twelve hours, strip him naked and beat him from time to time, threaten him with a dog or two, pose him with other guys, beat him a little more, and then we can try this conversation about why torturing helpless prisoners is wrong again.

What you are advocating, sir, is deeply and fundamentally antithetical to the basic principles of law and justice that I was taught this country stands for, and I deeply resent your advocacy of it. Why don't you go live in some country like Iran or North Korea, where they do this kind of crap all the time, since you find basic American values so offensive?


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 5, 2004)

MT MOD NOTE:

Thread locked pending admin review.

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 5, 2004)

*Admin Note*
We have had 2 account suspensions as a result of exchanges between parties involved in this thread, and others within the Study.  

To avoid anyone else from 'winning a vacation', I would strongly advise that any 'little digs', 'last words', or 'parting shots' be dropped, and the thread return to it's original discussion, that being the question of "Is the US is becoming a Rogue State?"

I have reopened this thread so that the main topic can be discussed.
Please focus on that.

Thank you,
Bob Hubbard
Technical Administrator.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 5, 2004)

* Personal Opinion Follows:*

I think that the U.S.A. is becoming and has the potential of becoming a Rogue State.

We are drawing more and more lines in the sand internally and externaly to our borders based upon Religion and knee jerk reactions of half information. Half information - Where someone here half or has half the information, with a twist from the presentor.

The media does not care about the truth, they care about ratings. What will it take to get more people to watch our channel?

People here what they want, they hang out with people who have similar views and they reinforce each other. When they meet in person or on the internet, they get into arguements and do not approach the situation with an open mind, to be able to possible learn something.

People hiding behind the rules, of a polite society, to yell at others to get their point of view across. Like if they yell the loudest, then they are the most right.

* End Personal Opinion*


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 5, 2004)

If in fact the US is becoming a rogue state, I don't think that it's irreversible.  I believe that following through with the current international activities to see them through completion would go a long way to demonstrating the will to strengthen the international community.


----------



## bignick (Oct 5, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Like if they yell the loudest, then they are the most right.


a bit of a "might makes right" attitude...in another thread the daily show came up and how it's viewers were more educated...well...i was watching last night and they had archbishop desmond tutu...

he had some interesting things to say....he said he feels that most people love america the country but don't like or understand how we let things like the situation in iraq happen...

he said that the people have an unbelievable capacity for compassion and aid and caring...and he hopes that we show the rest of the world that side again...


----------



## qizmoduis (Oct 6, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> No-one else seems to need scolding around these parts.... :idunno:
> 
> "The liberal media" is a joke.  That has been discussed in other threads.
> 
> ...



He should stop throwing around words like "Orwellian", "fascist", and "sedition" until he actually understands what they mean.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 6, 2004)

*Admin Note*
We have had 2 account suspensions as a result of exchanges between parties involved in this thread, and others within the Study.

To avoid anyone else from 'winning a vacation', *I would strongly advise that any 'little digs', 'last words', or 'parting shots' be dropped, and the thread return to it's original discussion*, that being the question of "Is the US is becoming a Rogue State?"

I have reopened this thread so that the main topic can be discussed.
Please focus on that.

Thank you,
Bob Hubbard
Technical Administrator.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 6, 2004)

It's actually not all that difficult to find news that's balanced and fair, and that reports on this country and the world in ways that fairly represent several sides to the issue.

Listen to NPR; listen to the BBC World Programme. They're on the radio every day; "All Things Considered," twice a day for hours, and they play the BBC on public stations across the country late at night. hell, you can even get Canada's late-night hour of news.

Then take a peek at "Nightly Business Report," and "Wall Street Journal," once in a while; get "The New York Times," sent to your e-mail address every morning. Sometimes, look at British journals like, "The Economist," or American ones like "The Nation," and "National Review," and "Atlantic Monthly," and "US News and World Report." Read your local paper; peek at "Time," and "Newsweek."

It's not that hard. Problem is, some folks are simply lazy--intellectually as well as physically. They don't want to do the reading, or even the listening, so they throw around words like, "liberal bias," and head straight for Rush or Savage or "USA Today." "Liberal bias," is just an excuse, because simply listening to "All Things Considered," will give you a reasonably-decent overview of what's up, without all the posturing and shouting. 

If you're reading this and you're still thinking, "liberal bias," let's ask this: have you TRIED the material I just listed? Hell, it's not even all liberal by any stretch of the imagination (well, unless you're in the tinfoil-hat-and-protect our-precious-bodily-fluids brigade), and it will equip you to understand what's going on in the world.

Is it a complete list? Nope. is it slanted towards the Western world? Sure yep.

But if you try, you'll be able to find out why a lot of people are scared about where this country is going.

Then there's the new Philip Roth novel--the one where Lucky Lindy gets elected in 1940, and the country goes completely fascist...now there's a rogue state.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 6, 2004)

I think some of the emphasis on the USA being a "sovereign entity" doesn't make sense to me - that somehow, by participating in the UN, we are giving something up.

I think, whether someone sees our actions as "rogue" or not, that it is at the very least *unwise* to turn our backs on other nations in the world, when our primary concern is terrorism.  I would want to be in a room of friends, rather than a room of enemies or not-really-sure-about-me folks if I thought someone might try to stab me in the back.  

I think it is foolish to emphasize the US's greatness, and assume that we will remain in this position of global power indefinetly, especially if we are not maintaining hospitable relations with other countries.  What happens if and when we are no longer the economic superpower?  Will we still think the UN is a silly thing to be involved in?  I think not.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 6, 2004)

> I think some of the emphasis on the USA being a "sovereign entity" doesn't make sense to me - that somehow, by participating in the UN, we are giving something up.



Yup. Its a very simple case of ethnocentrism/sociocentrism versus worldcentrism. Plain and simple.

Its really not even a "conservative" thing, as opposed to a jingoistic one. There are lots of worldcentrically-minded "conservatives", as both McCain and Powell immediately come to mind.

Nope, the enemy here is the rampant xenophobic jingoism that has infected the rank and file of America's politics. "My country, right or wrong" is not the proper way to conduct one's business as an "enlightened" civilization.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 6, 2004)

My ancestors didnt leave Europe back in the 1700-1800's because it was so darn wonderful that they couldnt stand it...now dont misunderstand me Im not "for" disregarding the wants, needs and opinions of other nations, but I would be careful how much power we give other organizations, powers or nations in regards to controlling our own destiny. Or the rights of our citizens.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 6, 2004)

How is participating in the UN - or ratifying an agreement with other nations - removing rights from US citizens?  I think agreements like NAFTA have taken away more rights and more economic opportunities from US citizens than I can mention, but I don't see the UN agreements doing that.

But, again, NAFTA is for a different thread.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 6, 2004)

World Court


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 6, 2004)

So shouldn't we participate in it?  Please tell me what you are getting at.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 6, 2004)

All I said was "I would be careful how much power we give other organizations, powers or nations in regards to controlling our own destiny. Or the rights of our citizens."...that being said I would be very careful in giving other Nations Judicial power over US citizens. Even Clinton, who signed on had reservations about this one...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa050602b.htm

Our nation was founded by people who didnt trust foriegn powers to control our destiny. I agree...co-operation with other nations is another thing. Tread with care is all I say.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 6, 2004)

Agreed.  I appreciate your sentiments! :cheers:


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 6, 2004)

> My ancestors didnt leave Europe back in the 1700-1800's because it was so darn wonderful that they couldnt stand it...now dont misunderstand me Im not "for" disregarding the wants, needs and opinions of other nations, but I would be careful how much power we give other organizations, powers or nations in regards to controlling our own destiny. Or the rights of our citizens.



Yes, but fortunately that is not what groups like the UN are about at all.

Organizations like the UN are based on the simple premise of "hey, let's talk." Very simply, that its a better idea to use diplomacy and act like truly civilized beings, discussing our differences in an enlightened way. 

No biggy here, its pretty basic stuff --- this is what the ideals of democracy are built upon.

The last time I checked, the UN does not "require" that its members do anything you implied, nor does the UN impose its will on its members at all.\

Its really just a fancy discussion forum for the international community. That's all, really.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 6, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Agreed. I appreciate your sentiments! :cheers:


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 6, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> All I said was "I would be careful how much power we give other organizations, powers or nations in regards to controlling our own destiny. Or the rights of our citizens."...that being said I would be very careful in giving other Nations Judicial power over US citizens. Even Clinton, who signed on had reservations about this one...
> 
> http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa050602b.htm
> 
> Our nation was founded by people who didnt trust foriegn powers to control our destiny. I agree...co-operation with other nations is another thing. Tread with care is all I say.


But doesn't the Internation Criminal Court only have jurisdiction over 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity' if the United States government *does not* act on those crimes in our own system of jurisprudence?

Is that position tantamount to arguing *for* the right to commit 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity' by the government?

Mike


----------



## qizmoduis (Oct 7, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> How is participating in the UN - or ratifying an agreement with other nations - removing rights from US citizens?  I think agreements like NAFTA have taken away more rights and more economic opportunities from US citizens than I can mention, but I don't see the UN agreements doing that.
> 
> But, again, NAFTA is for a different thread.



There's actually a very large religious component underlying the right-wing distrust of the UN.  They consider the UN the precursor the the world government they claim will be the tool of Satan as predicted in the book of Revelations.

Of course, you'll never see the leaders proclaiming this nonsense, but it's there.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 7, 2004)

> There's actually a very large religious component underlying the right-wing distrust of the UN. They consider the UN the precursor the the world government they claim will be the tool of Satan as predicted in the book of Revelations.



That's one of the basic premises of that "Left Behind" garbage, I believe.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 7, 2004)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> There's actually a very large religious component underlying the right-wing distrust of the UN. They consider the UN the precursor the the world government they claim will be the tool of Satan as predicted in the book of Revelations.
> 
> Of course, you'll never see the leaders proclaiming this nonsense, but it's there.


Huh!  I've heard one or two things like that on some pretty interesting radio programs, but it seemed so ridiculous....

*gank*



> That's one of the basic premises of that "Left Behind" garbage, I believe.


I didn't realize that was such a huge market, until I sat next to someone on a plane flight who was reading number, what, 6 or 8 or something.  She told me all about it.  Then I saw them everywhere.  It was even funnier because she asked me what I was reading, which was a manuscript on evolution and sex. 

*/gank*


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 7, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Then I saw them everywhere. It was even funnier because she asked me what I was reading, which was a manuscript on evolution and sex.


Just a guess here .... but I am thinking your book was *WAY* more interesting than her book.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 7, 2004)

Dunno about "interesting", but even a cursory glance at the plot of the Left Behind series leaves little doubt that its just a thinly-veiled work of propaganda for the Religous Right.

Let's review some of the key themes:

- Israel is hailed as some sort of asylum for the "true believers", and should be supported no matter what.

- The leader of the UN is some kind of uber-atheist Antichrist seeking to eradicate all "true believers".

- There is a worldwide "secular" campaign to persecute the world's Christians into extinction. To defeat this campaign, the world's remaining "true believer" Christians have to bind together and unite forces against their common foe.

- God has picked out some people, who are "special" or "chosen", based (of course) on their religous and philosophical beliefs.

Yup. No political overtones in there at all.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 7, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Just a guess here .... but I am thinking your book was *WAY* more interesting than her book.


(Well, I thought so...!)    It was a meeting of different worlds, kind of.  I did manage to talk about books eventually, because her husband next to her was reading The Two Towers, which I could effuse about.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 7, 2004)

> I did manage to talk about books eventually, because her husband next to her was reading The Two Towers, which I could effuse about.



Wow. He was reading some Tolkien while she was reading Left Behind??

Its almost like seeing two people reading Mein Kampf and Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Spirit' side by side....


----------



## Tgace (Oct 10, 2004)

"But if we are to be told by a foreign Power...what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little." -George Washington


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 11, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> - The leader of the UN is some kind of uber-atheist Antichrist seeking to eradicate all "true believers".




This is the crux of some of the "survivalist" and militant right wing groups in America.  The notion of a "New World Order" wherein UN troops invade America is pretty popular with them.  One woman in a gun store (selling me the gun) used to go through the paper and count the number of times she could find "new world order" instead of doing crossword puzzles.  She said she found it "all the time".  I suspect that was reaching a bit.  The phrase, interestingly, was coined by George HW Bush.

Also interesting how the UN has replaced the Soviet Union in their minds as the arch nemesis now that the Cold War is over.  

Regards,


Steve


----------

