Jump to content

Korinn

Equilism Member
  • Content count

    465
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Korinn

  • Rank
    Vassel
  • Birthday 03/15/1981

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  1. Korinn

    AoMK Weds Goat

    JEALOUSY........RISING.............. She's so Baaaaaaautiful.
  2. Korinn

    The Tai Sun

    The Tai Sun TaijituSignsTreatyWithThePacific Sovereign Dixie during the signing Emperor Moo-Cows celebrating the signing of the treaty Yesterday evening the newly elected Delegate Sovereign Dixie along with newly appointed Minister of Defense/External Affairs PoD Gunner(GMT) met with Emperor Moo-Cows of The Pacific to sign a treaty that would ally two of the most powerful regions in NS. After some awkwardness at the beginning when PoD Gunner shook one of the Emperors udders instead of the presented hoof, the meeting went smoothly. Within hours the treaty was signed. The treaty reads as follows: This treaty promises great things for both regions. Bringing them to each others defense in times of need. Sovereign Dixie announced the treaty this morning saying: "We shall stand firm with our allies, come what may". Both regions have high hopes that this treaty can bring both regions closer and more prosperous. What the future holds for NS is unknown, but in this reporters humble opinion whatever it is, the future looks like it shall be an exciting one. Reported by Kor A_Taiji Press
  3. Korinn

    Frakkin' Ron Paul, Yo!

    Marius - quite. But for all that, he wasn't the first to march on Rome. And before Marius, there was Scipio... If your argument is that one should not buy stability by selling life and liberty, I agree with you fully. They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither and will surely lose both. -Benjamin Franklin Seemed fitting. *runs off*
  4. Korinn

    2008 American Elections

    Well that is true, but they did lie to Congress about information that lead to them voting to go to war with Iraq. There were no WMDs there. They didn't attack us and they were no threat to us. So in my eyes, because they lied to Congress and the people I feel that the war is illegal. I agree with what Chauce said. For that matter, unless I'm mistaken I believe your argument has changed. Initially you were suggesting that the war was illegal from the perspective of international law; now, by mentioning "they" lied to Congress and the people (whoever "they" are) you're suggesting it was illegal from the perspective of American law. So far as I know there is no law preventing the President from lying unless he is under oath. He might be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," and while I'm sure someone could find something about the conduct of the Iraq war itself that merits impeachment I don't think lying is necessarily one of them. That of course assumes that the President lied in the first place and was not, as Chauce suggested, simply wrong. Umm, actually my argument was this war was illegal. I was just focusing on the International side, because everyone was talking about "global responsibilities". The war is illegal on all sides Actually to power the entire US it would only require 9% of the desert in the west. As far as cost it's way more cost effective than $100 a barrel for oil.
  5. Korinn

    2008 American Elections

    Just to be perfectly clear on this; the United States does not need approval from the United Nations to conduct a legal war, and not every war declared by a nation that the UN does not sanction is automatically illegal. The President was given broad military options for Iraq from the United States Congress. That's legal. The United Nations is not a super-government. Well that is true, but they did lie to Congress about information that lead to them voting to go to war with Iraq. There were no WMDs there. They didn't attack us and they were no threat to us. So in my eyes, because they lied to Congress and the people I feel that the war is illegal.
  6. Korinn

    2008 American Elections

    You didn't, and I never said you did. I just don't see the point in invading a country that did nothing. My point was people would get angry about it, yet we do the same thing. http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security/issue...ck/lawindex.htm Also, no UN Resolution gave the US the legal right to invade. We could not attack under 678(enacted in 1990) because it only called for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. UN Resolution 687(1991) also called the ceasefire resolution certified that this aim had been realised. This resolution also threatened Iraq with “serious consequences” if it used poisonous gasses or other biological weapons and renewed the demand for Iraq to maintain a clear distance from “international terrorism.” This resolution was accepted by Iraq. UN Resolution 707 (1991) did not revoke the ceasefire nor has it since been repealed. No subsequent resolution contained a justification for military operations, not even in relation to forcing Iraq to cooperate with weapons inspectors. Resolution 1441, passed on November 8, 2002, was later used by the US and Great Britain to justify war. This resolution gave instructions to the chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed El-Baradei, to report any lack of cooperation from Iraq to the UN Security Council, so that it could properly assess the situation. The decisions that the UN Security Council would then take in such a situation were left open. Although the Security Council threatened “serious consequences,” it did not make explicit what form they would take. On the contrary, Resolution 1441 expressed “unmistakably” that the matter had yet to be determined by the Security Council. The resolution did not give a free hand for military action, but rather—based on the UN Charter—left the decision about any consequences to the UN. Only if the UN Security Council resolution text had explicitly provided for the use of military force, within the confines of the UN Charter, would military action against Iraq have been permitted. An apparent “silence,” or the position that the meaning of “serious consequences” was left unclarified, did not suffice to justify military action. the resolution text was interpreted differently by the US and UK. It stated: “For the determination of what the UN Security Council had decided in one of its resolutions, what is decisive is not what government representatives ‘thought’ about the proceedings and resolutions themselves. It is far more dependent on what was actually laid down in the text of the agreed resolution. If it is not in the text, an appropriate draft resolution is lacking. The mental reservations of governments or their representatives are not valid insofar as international law is concerned.” The text of Resolution 1441 showed, on the contrary, that an exemption to the fundamental prohibition on the use of force had not been decided on. Nowhere did it contain an endorsement or an authorisation for any government or state to use force according to Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The term “authorisation” in this context did not even appear anywhere in the resolution. The attempt of the governments in the US, UK and Spain to have a resolution passed immediately before the start of the war that would have authorised military action did not find majority support in the Security Council. To avoid the resolution being defeated, the draft resolution was withdrawn. I must have been tired when I posted. I must have meant something else, now that I look again. My apologies for that. Side Note: I saw yo mentioned American oil security. If America would just switch to alternative renewable energy source, we might not have to fight over the oil. Mother Earth News did a fantastic article on Solar energy. It showed how we could switch completely to solar energy. Well not completely; cars would be gas, but there are solar cars. Just not mass produces. Sorry for going off-topic :/
  7. Korinn

    2008 American Elections

    First off, Iraq did nothing to us. Unless you are one of those people that still think Iraq attacked us. And secondly you misread what I wrote obviously. I said if there was a civil war HERE. I never mentioned Iraq and Russia in the same paragraph, let alone sentence. I don't get where you got that from. Unless you're trying to put words in my mouth. If that's the case it's not appreciated and I ask that you not do that. Also, OMG what's with the semantics? Ok, we don't "declare" preemptive wars. We just invade illegally. Is that better? Wikipedia doesn't take into account the money we borrow. My facts are accurate.
  8. Korinn

    2008 American Elections

    We will never pull out of Iraq if the current policies stay. And it is not pacifism; it's staying out of affairs that are none of our concern. Hypothetically speaking let's say a civil war happened here. Would you be mad if Russia came sweeping in? Now think about how the world thinks. See my point? We declare preemptive wars on countries that did nothing. These wars are violations of International Law. While we're there, we violate the Geneva Convention by torturing people. On the military note, it's contributing to the bankrupting of America. We spend $3 trillion dollars a year on our military. I agree Diplomacy is very key. We are far from diplomatic. We try to spread democracy through a gun barrel, when we should be spreading liberty through our words and examples. It's totally about imperialism. If it wasn't, then why are we building massive bases there, even though they don't want us there? Even with that massive military budget, we are embarrassed by a backwater nation. Oh yeah, that'll strike fear in the hearts of our enemies. Personally I believe in what Thomas Jefferson said. "Commerce with all nations, Alliance with none." BTW, it's Speak softly and carry a big stick.
  9. Korinn

    2008 American Elections

    You definitely don't know my ideas for government then. We should have NO military presence there. At all, for no reason. This idea that we should police the globe is imperialistic and vile. It's exactly what is bankrupting this country. Our foreign policy is despicable. I personally think if he's elected this policy will continue and then we will be bankrupt.
  10. Korinn

    2008 American Elections

    Wait. John McCain, the man who has more military experience than all the other candidates put together (with the possible exception of Duncan Hunter, but who's really counting Duncan Hunter?), the man who has experienced the worst effects of war, is in fact a warmonger? It's possible to hate war in general and still support specific wars that support your nation's interests. I would posit that because McCain has such a personal connection with the consequences of failure in war that his entire candidacy is based on the concept of victory in Iraq. You can disagree with McCain's policies, but you're doing an incredible disservice to your own ideas if you go around wildly accusing a man who has almost universal respect and has served this nation far more than can be humanly expected of irresponsible behavior. PS Bismarcia's right--American foreign policy has been assertive since our founding...we like projecting power I said what I said because he made a comment that he wouldn't mind seeing the war in Iraq to last 100 years. He also isn't against a war in Iran or Pakistan. That isn't war mongering?! Also, don't you dare assume you know my ideas. I don't throw insults around lightly. I came to that conclusion based on what I've seen and heard from him.
  11. Korinn

    2008 American Elections

    Now?!? When haven't they liked warmongers? Well, as an American; I can say I've never liked them. Obviously I am the minority.
  12. Korinn

    2008 American Elections

    I can't convey my utter disgust that McCain won. I guess Americans like war mongers now.
  13. Korinn

    Frakkin' Ron Paul, Yo!

    First of all, the government doesn't fund schools. We do. Where do you think all the money comes from? If you said taxes you'd be correct. More bureaucracy equals more taxes. Some regulation is fine, but government wants to control everything involved with education and as it stands they do. Sure allow the government to keep it so the schools to teach proper sciences. You have to remember the government works for us. We should have the control, not them. A government with too much power will steal your liberties. Oh, wait too late. To answer your last question. I personally do prefer a privatized system, but I know it will never happen, nor is it feasible with our population or economic structure. So I don't mention it much. Privatization works better on a small scale. It's hairbrained to believe it could work and I know it.
  14. Korinn

    Frakkin' Ron Paul, Yo!

    I believe it'd have to be very limited. When a government dictates what a school teaches we create sheeple.
×