Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kelven

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. World Politics (Was: Beavers!!!)

    Ok, I agree with most of what you are saying about the Patriot act, excuse the use of past tense. However, the courts HAVE invalidated the most offensive parts of it and Congress is at present drafting a bill to invalidate almost everything else that remains. As for the part about biological weapons: I spend half of my day in a biomed lab and my grad advisor does some of this research (there is a cdc research lab on our campus). The differences you refer to between legitimate research and research for weapons is not as distinct and clear as you say. They are very similar and the language of the resolution you refered to in your post did not make ANY allowances for this. Much of the legitimate research we do (smallpox, avine bird flu) is completely legitimate yet I can easily see how someone with knowledge in our lab could use the literally dozens of current research projects as a "weapon". Most "weapons" are common strands of disease that have been very slightly modified (the addition of a single RNA plasmid or the modification of a single R chain). Beside this research I do think that there is legitimate research being done on actual "weapons" in order to find ways to combat them. Also, many biological agents used as weapons could potentially show up naturally in our environment due to genetic shift and drift and therefor there is a real reason to be researching them. I am not confusing sovergnty with stubbornness. Look the plethora of resolutions that the US has supported or adhered to that required a change in legistlation: there are tons of them! The legislature commonly adopts these types of resolutions. However, it is the few resolutions that REGARDLESS of their name or proposed benifit that violate the constitution (I.E. the fundamental rights of the people and powers of the government) that can not be made into law. To allow another country to modify the US constitution would be tantamount to eliminating its sovergnty and would probably lead to a collapse of the current system of government. Your contentions are an extreme oversimplification of what of this entire process. Congress did not have to declare war on Iraq. It was not illegal to invade Iraq. Under the War Powers Act of 1973(http://www.luminet.net/~tgort/wpa.htm) the congress may authorize the President to use military force with out the declaration of war. This is FAR from being an illegal action. Additionally, under the treaty that ended the Persion Gulf war in which Iraq INVADED Kuwait Saddam himself agreed that if he violoated the peace treaty the US and Iraq would then be at a state of war. The occupation or invasion of Iraq in such a cercumstance is not illegal nor a violation of the geneva convention. I beleive that Saddam did need to be removed from power. I do not support the timing (I think it should have waited and alternatives should have been more aggressively sought out) nor the means at which this was accomplished, but I will not say that it was an illegal action because it simply was not.
  2. Trade bug!!!! Lost tit serp!

    Ok, not sure that this is really a bug at this point. Warlord was supposed to post here with what he did since the error was one his side, my guess now is that he just removed the sword and clicked ok very quickly and then claimed not to have had it. Oh well, guess you can move this to the "community" thread.
  3. World Politics (Was: Beavers!!!)

    Indeed there is a major difference between medical and weapons research when dealing with biologic>>>>i.e. the intent of the user. However since you can not use that as a standard and since the research itself IS NOT different the resolution applied to both. You are right, the US constitution applies to the USA. The resolutions that were vetoed applied just as equally to the USA as everyone else. The main issue is not about war criminals it is about the seperation and apportionment of powers given by the constitution. Your argument is contradictory; sovergnty for other nations but the US must change the very thing which its government has been based upon since its inception? If a UN resolution violates the US constitution the US will not support it, it would be pointless to do so b/c even if it did the courts would over rule whatever action was mandated by the resolution and it would become resolution on name only. The same thing would happen in other countries, too; for example you can't expect a UN resolution combining religion and state to fly in the ultra secular government of France, it violates the very foundation of what their government is based upon. The invasion in Iraq was authorized by Congress. Congress explicitely stated that the office of the executive could use "any means necessary" to resolve the situation in Iraq. The US Patriot Act was indeed a piece of shit, most of which has been overturned by the court>>>another example of the checks and balances. The act was actually voted into law with huge bipartison support; largely an over reaction to 9/11. That it was inacted by a representative congress in no way invalidates the principle of democracy.
  4. Trade bug!!!! Lost tit serp!

    Oh, and isn't there any way to fix this for the time being? At my lvls I had to save up almost a week for this.
  5. World Politics (Was: Beavers!!!)

    The UN was formed to create world stability and was designed the way it was in order to avoid the problems that made the League of Nations powerless. Its main purpose was to create a forum for communication for the worlds Major powers to prevent tho possibility of a third world war. It was not intended to rob any of these countries of their own sovernty. The resolution you refered to would have eleminated all chemical/biological agents that could be used as weapons as well as eliminate all research done on these agents. Also, since biological agents are also naturally occuring that would have had an effect on the research programs for both the CDC and the Pastreur Institute (which do mostly the same things). This is my background field and both the CDC and the Pastuer Institute do research on biological agents that could be considered "biological weapons". The benifits to mankind for this type of research are staggering but in order to explain them all I would have to post an entire graduate level course in microbiology. Almost all of the US budget for WMD go towards nuclear weapons that were created during the cold war with the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Again, this is an entirely seperate issue. Also, the US has not used its veto power as much as you have indicated nor is it the main vetoer in the UN: "Since 1945, when the United Nations was founded, the Soviet Union and Russia have used their veto at the Security Council 120 times, the United States 76 times, Britain 32, France 18 and China only five." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/2828985.stm Also, all of the perm. members have used the THREAT of veto to since resolutions just as effectively as an actaul veto (for example France threatening to veto a UN resolution authorizing military invasion of Iraq failed do to the threats). Of the 77 US vetos, 36 where to block resolutions whose only purpose was to criticise Israel. Also, since the collapse of the USSR capitalistic Russia has used its veto power only twice. Indeed during the first ten years of the UN the US did not use its veto at all and the USSR used it 79 times! As for China, the small number of vetos are due to China's seat on the UN security council being occupied by the Republic of China (ROC, or Taiwan) from 1946 to 1971. The fact that a resolution violates the US constitution is not irrelevent; it is at the heart of many issues :!: :!: To consider it irrelevent shows a fundamental misunderstanding of US signed a resolution that violated its consitution it would be immediately overturned by the courts! Indeed, the US does not have the type of government where a central authority can decide to ignore the constitution whenever it wants to. It has absolutely nothing to do with the US being leader of the free world or with other countries being bitter about it. You argued that countries should be respectfull of Iraq's sovergnty but then you easily dismiss the sovergnty of the US.
  6. Trade bug!!!! Lost tit serp!

    Uh, ok; warlord can u post with what u did? I guess I can try sitting at the beam again and trading until it happens again...
  7. World Politics (Was: Beavers!!!)

    Ok, didn't look up all of those but I did look up the one about world ecology b/c I remember hearing about it. That one was veto'd because it gave certain rights to the UN that were granted to the US legeslature and therefor violated the constitution of the United States. I have the feeling several of the others also fall under that category. The veto power in the UN is there for a reason; if it wasn't there the UN would never have been formed in the first place. None of the perm security members would have consented without it, and it is there so that they can maintain their own sovernty in making decisions for themselves and not have a case of smaller nations telling them what to do with their own country (I don't know if this is good or not, but that would be an argument for changing the UN charter, not on whether the US shouldn't use its veto). As for the one about chem/biological weapons the US has always done extensive research in both of these fields and indeed it needs to for medical research purposes irregardless of anything else (immagine a world w/o the CDC and Pastuer institute). Second, I feel that we have shifted the focus of the argument once again; going from Saddam to US veto policy in the UN. :? I don't see how it is relevant to Saddam's autrocities and why he should have been removed from power. Oh, I also checked the one about security counsel members ensuring UN decisions about international peace and security: that one also violated the US constitution b/c the US can't do so w/o authorization from the senate in each and every cercumstance. Also, there was concern b/c the bill stated that most of the money for such undertakings would come from the US, but thats just a minor side not compaired to the constitutional incompatibility issue (I will find the ref for this; I found it on the school database and don't know how you can access it but I'm sure I can find it somewhere else).
  8. Trade bug!!!! Lost tit serp!

    Hey Ent, we had a problem with the trade system. Me and warlord where trading and a tit serp got lost in the exchange. He got the gold and furs but I didn't get the serp and he didn't have it in his inventory anymore. We both logged out and then back in but it had no effect. Can you remedy/fix this please?
  9. World Politics (Was: Beavers!!!)

    Ent, read the rest of them. The one quoting the numbers killed is pretty much iron clad...the first one was just the most graphic so I put it first...notice that the reputable ones are saying the same things as the ones just saying "propaganda". Most of the sources are humans rights agencies, government, or news agencies. The link with the statistics I got from a UN website. How has USA broken resolutions using veto power? The power to veto a resolution has been used by all perm members of the security council and is part of the UN charter, so it doesn't "break" any UN resolutions. I looked at the link 75% of those were dealing with Isreal and Palestinean terrorists. I even saw one about ending the trade embargo with cuba...I don't see anything like what we are talking about with Iraq. As for Israel, that is an entirely different and incredably complex situation.
  10. World Politics (Was: Beavers!!!)

    Oh, Jim btw the UN passed resolution after resolution condemning Iraq and the history of UN mandates violated by Saddam is simply astounding. The UN spoke out against Iraq in about as harsh a voice possible given that France, Russia, and China would veto anything more proactive that would have jeapordized their economic interests in Iraq. I like hunting beavers, kill 5 and its an easy 15k
  11. World Politics (Was: Beavers!!!)

    Snuit, that was a joke. Ent, do you expect him to hand himself over to a tribunal? Now that we have him he will most likely be given over to the new Iraqii government for his own people to decide what to do with him. Hitler killed ruthlessly simply because of a persons race/creed/sexual oreintation. Saddam killed ruthlessly simply because of a persons race/creed/sexual oreintation. The only difference is the magnitude of the autrocity (which isn't very far apart). Most of what I know of the area comes from what my wife tells me as well as talking to my father in law (a shia muslim who lived in Iraq and witnessed many friends "disappear"). Anyways, here are the links to news articles relating to Saddam's reign of terror: http://www.indict.org.uk/witnesses.php Rather graphic. http://www.state.gov/s/wci/fs/19352.htm http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cnn-iraq.htm http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo...l20030922.shtml A good one. Not a link but the book Embedded: very good source from an on the scene journalist and veteran reporter on war crimes. http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/15/Worldand...ttributed.shtml Another good one. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...1107238,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82879,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105847,00.html Comments on Iran-Iraq war. http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/04/07/Mai...aq-514399.shtml http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat5.htm#Iraq 1. Iraq, Shia rebellion in south (1991-92) o War Annual 6: 40,000 o Ploughshares 2000 cites ... § Rebel commanders: 50,000 § al-Hakim: 300,000 o 22 Feb. 1994 AP at Radwaniyeh prison camp § November 1993: up to 2,000 political executions § before September 1993: "hundreds" § October 1992: 200 in a single day http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm Speech from the US war crimes ambassador. Side note: this is the most wondering thread ever...from beavers, to capitalism, to nationalism, to Saddam Huessein....
  12. Where do you stop?

    Yeah, the market is flooded with people with CS degrees. Hey ent, why not tell them you can send them, how many people play EL???, like 1000 letters of recommendations? :lol:
  13. World Politics (Was: Beavers!!!)

    Personaly I think Saddam should have been removed from power from 500 meters with a 50 caliber sniper rifle. Would have saved everyone a lot of trouble and only cost 50 cents for the bullet.
  14. World Politics (Was: Beavers!!!)

    I agree with the last part of your post about why the war was started. I think there were plenty of real reasons to go to war that had nothing to do with their expelling weapons inspectors and their potential weapons programs. Iraq's sovernty has nothing to do with it, they invaded a sovergn nation in 1990 and in order to keep from losing their own they signed a treaty which they then violated repeatedly in more ways than one. Therefor the military action was legal under international law and can't be considered a "criminal action". Further, would you have considered troops in Rwanda or Somolia a criminal action? Or for that matter French legionarres in Haiti? Where is the bright line as to when one nation can violate anothers sovernty and when it can not? I honestly don't remember if US planes where shot down or not, that is not the point (my wife remembers Britian losing 2 tornadoes but I don't have time to verify that). It was a violation of the treaty for them to have any military in that area at all (like if N. Korea decided to fly through the Demilitarized zone) much less to take hostile action in that area. I will have to look but I will get you the links/references for the atrocities of Saddam; thought they were well known by most but perhaps only in the Muslim community. Iraq's use of chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war and the Persian Gulf war are well documented; I will get you references about what he did to his own people though, too. I know how the economy works and I have no doubt that a socialist/communist country would invade another country if it was to their economic benift. Problem is there are many capitalist countries and many different capitalist systems. Capitalism is not dependent upon nationalism and vice versa. Regardless of the US reason for going to war I don't mind seeing Saddam's government go; he was one of the closest things we have to a modern Hitler, and I don't use that lightly. My posts had nothing to do with support for the Bush administration. I was previosly talking about capitalism and it is an overisimplification to link the two. Capitalism and democracy will still be around after Bush is gone (i.e. next year). It might take me a day to get the links, I'm off to work atm.
  15. World Politics (Was: Beavers!!!)

    I do know what you are talking about but I was trying to be specific to capitalism, not the policy of US nationalism. Where the "autrocities" being commited in Iraq worse than the half million Saddam has killed in the last 15 years? One mass grave outside of Bagdad contained 80,000 Shia's.