Moving this video to chicchorea's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*quality *promote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by blankfist.

Judging by the tickers at the bottom, this is from late 2007, maybe January 2008.

Buhahahahahahaha....hahahahahaha....sigh

Evidently if the military industrial complex can profit from it, then it's OK.

>> ^Morganth:
Judging by the tickers at the bottom, this is from late 2007, maybe January 2008.


judging by all 12 pixels, this is from late 1996, maybe January 1997.

Apples and Oranges. We are an active U.N. member AND on the security council, not to mention a member of NATO. We also have MANY treaties. People are concerned about the semantics here. The rule of law and how they can garner leverage politically.

Meanwhile, we're preventing what could have been a near genocidal event. In the past we sat on our rear ends with such events across the globe. Then a lot of people cried foul that we did nothing (as oil wasn't involved).

Now, we do the right thing and the Republican war machinists cry foul; most likely ONLY, because they didn't tell Obama to do it first.

We have foreign obligations; get over it.

>> ^kceaton1:

Apples and Oranges. We are an active U.N. member AND on the security council, not to mention a member of NATO. We also have MANY treaties. People are concerned about the semantics here. The rule of law and how they can garner leverage politically.
Meanwhile, we're preventing what could have been a near genocidal event. In the past we sat on our rear ends with such events across the globe. Then a lot of people cried foul that we did nothing (as oil wasn't involved).
Now, we do the right thing and the Republican war machinists cry foul; most likely ONLY, because they didn't tell Obama to do it first.
We have foreign obligations; get over it.


Alternative (I'd dare say more realistic view, if you follow history and facts) view says that yes, it's all politics, but that we're not intervening to help, we're using the positive excuse of helping to advance our own interests.

>> ^JAPR:

>> ^kceaton1:
Apples and Oranges. We are an active U.N. member AND on the security council, not to mention a member of NATO. We also have MANY treaties. People are concerned about the semantics here. The rule of law and how they can garner leverage politically.
Meanwhile, we're preventing what could have been a near genocidal event. In the past we sat on our rear ends with such events across the globe. Then a lot of people cried foul that we did nothing (as oil wasn't involved).
Now, we do the right thing and the Republican war machinists cry foul; most likely ONLY, because they didn't tell Obama to do it first.
We have foreign obligations; get over it.

Alternative (I'd dare say more realistic view, if you follow history and facts) view says that yes, it's all politics, but that we're not intervening to help, we're using the positive excuse of helping to advance our own interests.


I agree, I'm fully aware of this. Especially, since he has backtracked on many issues he ran on (again, previous history). However, I'm merely trying to say there is a lot of complaining here for very flimsy reasons. Could it be for selfish reasons, sure. Yet I think we are also in the right, whether it has co-mutual benefits.

The point I'm making is that in this scenario, before us, must also remind us that we are in the U.N.. We are also on the security council AND we passed this resolution with the rest. We even have the U.N. IN New York. We have obligations internationally, because of this. Do I want another "war" no. Do I think it's necessary, yes. If we truly ever want to have the U.N. work we have to do this. I know this will be different for every president we have. George W. used a resolution to "legally" start a war he wanted. Obama is watching the dominoes fall in the Middle East and has acted. Does this mean we are doing this for personal reasons that is absolutely correct--this will be true no matter what situation leads to it. Libya is also a member in the U.N. and is obligated to obey resolutions.

I'm concerned that in the past we have created this international institution and abused it and used it for OUR reasons. This time it was more an international decision.

It may be right for intervention to occur in Lybia, but as we are bound to turn it to our own ends, it shouldn't have been us, is what I mean, I guess. I hate seeing people do some measure of good in order to take advantage of others.

Isn't it a little late to be talking about Impeaching Bush? Iraq and Afghanistan were years ago... to little to late.

>> ^Morganth:

Judging by the tickers at the bottom, this is from late 2007, maybe January 2008.


Judging by the datestamp that pops up at the start of the video, I'd say 2007.

Bush? >> ^Hanover_Phist:

Isn't it a little late to be talking about Impeaching Bush? Iraq and Afghanistan were years ago... to little to late.

Sorry chicchorea, I forgot my /sarcasm tag.

I don't know much about American politics, but I always think it's weird when you guys only talk about impeaching the Democrat Presidents, when only months before the Republican President was doing that, and much worse.

>> ^Hanover_Phist:

Sorry chicchorea, I forgot my /sarcasm tag.
I don't know much about American politics, but I always think it's weird when you guys only talk about impeaching the Democrat Presidents, when only months before the Republican President was doing that, and much worse.


People also spoke about impeaching Bush. A lot of people. I used to have a Bush For Ex-President shirt back in those days. I just think Clinton made it sexy.

>> ^kceaton1:

Apples and Oranges. We are an active U.N. member AND on the security council, not to mention a member of NATO. We also have MANY treaties. People are concerned about the semantics here. The rule of law and how they can garner leverage politically.
Meanwhile, we're preventing what could have been a near genocidal event. In the past we sat on our rear ends with such events across the globe. Then a lot of people cried foul that we did nothing (as oil wasn't involved).
Now, we do the right thing and the Republican war machinists cry foul; most likely ONLY, because they didn't tell Obama to do it first.
We have foreign obligations; get over it.


International treaties don't override the constitution, that defeats the whole purpose. Why have a constitution if it can be so easily subverted? "Oh, gee, this international treaty I signed tells me I can do anything my domestic constitution prohibits me from doing!"

>> ^BansheeX:

>> ^kceaton1:
Apples and Oranges. We are an active U.N. member AND on the security council, not to mention a member of NATO. We also have MANY treaties. People are concerned about the semantics here. The rule of law and how they can garner leverage politically.
Meanwhile, we're preventing what could have been a near genocidal event. In the past we sat on our rear ends with such events across the globe. Then a lot of people cried foul that we did nothing (as oil wasn't involved).
Now, we do the right thing and the Republican war machinists cry foul; most likely ONLY, because they didn't tell Obama to do it first.
We have foreign obligations; get over it.

International treaties don't override the constitution, that defeats the whole purpose. Why have a constitution if it can be so easily subverted? "Oh, gee, this international treaty I signed tells me I can do anything my domestic constitution prohibits me from doing!"


I'm not saying it's right, but I suggest you rtfc before you post... Take it or leave it.

"The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land. Article 103 of the U.N. Charter makes clear that the charter supercedes all other conflicting treaties. It says: "In the event of conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail."