|
|
Post by misaki on Aug 2, 2008 7:17:39 GMT -5
The 9/11 debate...never fails to frustrate. Luckily, living in Europe, I don't get to hear much about all the conspiracy theories on 9/11. It's such a tragic disaster, and I'm more than glad I don't live anywhere near. But lately, I've heard more and more people saying there is 'proof' it was a 'spoof', something actually organized by Bush. They mainly mention very reasonable reasons like; 1) the fact that mr Bush needs oil. 2) Arabic countries have oil 3.) He needs a legitimate reason to attack, or no one would allow him 4) The fact that they somehow ended up fighting Iraq, a country with much oil and a dictator who actually disliked Osama.5) They, with all their high tech, still haven't caught the somewhat primitive (in comparison) Osama 6) They don't really seem to try to anymore either 7) One of the buildings collapsed without a plane crashing in, and it seemed to have looked like a planned demolition 8)Operation Northwoods; military leaders planed 'terrorist' attacks in the 1960's, to trick people into war with Cuba. Whoever said there way of working changed? Okay, tehre is also much against it, of course. For example, the fact that one of the buildings wasn't destroyed by a plane, but probably by bombs, most likely means terrorists had been able to sneak bombs into the building. And Bush doesn't seem smart enough to plan something like this, he seems much more like someone who is after his own gain and makes use of an already existing situation. Maybe Osama is really that hard to catch. He does have a bunch of very dedicated followers after all. All in all, I'm more than confused. In general, I think conspiracy theories like these are generally loads of crap, but on the other hand, governments have done some pretty crazy tricks in the past. Plus, I found the info on the proven, existing plans of Operation Northwood utterly shocking - in fact it's why I'm even considering the whole conspiracy theory. It's the same country. Why wouldn't the same tricks be used again? Bush may be stupid, no one said his advisers are. So, I'm just confused. I think some of the thories are severly unrealistic, people just love some good drama and every story needs a bad guy. On the other hand, some things are very...strange. Info on Operation Northwood: www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html(including scans of the original documents; plans to randomly kill innocent Americans on the street etc. ) So, what is your opinion on all this? After all, many live of you live in the US, so your opinions are probably more based on the everyday reality than the few bits of information I get over here. |
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Aug 3, 2008 12:56:45 GMT -5
Well on one hand, there are plenty of reasons why terrorists will attack America. The United States has had a record of intervening in different foreign affairs where it really didn't belong (Latin America during the Cold War, Iraq, etc.). In addition, America supported the creation of Israel and gave them financial and military aid. While I do not mean to be anti-Semitic and have nothing against Israel, the actions that America took regarding Israel has certainly set the Palestinians and their allies against America. It is quite easy to imagine that Islamic terrorists who desires to see Israel gone see America as an enemy as well. Third. Most Americans are Christians, including a good part of our government. While there is nothing wrong with that, some Islamists feel a certain enmity to Christians, especially after the Crusades. And I'm positive Bush did not help at all when he mentioned "crusade" in one of his speeches. And if Islamic terrorists do not want to attack America because of its overtly Christian influence, it's because of their apparent godlessness. In addition, America is often associated with Western ideas and culture, something that some radical Muslims abhor.
But, there is, of course, a chance that America staged 9/11. After all, there is quite a few reasons why the Bush administration would want an attack on American soil. In the weeks following 9/11, the approval rate of Bush was at its highest. The fact that Bush was allowed to pass the Patriot Act, that trespassed on critical human rights, is testament to the popularity of Bush at that time. In addition, he was allowed to intervene in foreign affairs where it appeared to be most dangerous to America and by happy chance, they're also major sources of oil. So all in all, while I'm confident that 9/11 was caused by Islamist terrorists, I have not ruled out the possibility that it was staged by the Bush administration.
|
|
|
|
Post by smeagollum on Aug 6, 2008 15:36:55 GMT -5
Ok. No. 9/11 really happened.
1) the fact that mr Bush needs oil.
2) Arabic countries have oil
War for oil is honestly a bucket of crap. Yes, the Arab countries have oil, but, they do not have nearly the amount of oil as we can get from other places in the world. Venezula has a lot of oil, for instance, and the talk right now is to get oil from the oil sands in Canada, which is estimated to have more oil than all of the Arab countries put together.
The oil problem is mostly from the depreciation of the dollar and the adaption of China into the Western culture, but that is a different issue.
3.) He needs a legitimate reason to attack, or no one would allow him
Not sure why this is even an issue. He had no reason to attack until after 9/11.
4) The fact that they somehow ended up fighting Iraq, a country with much oil and a dictator who actually disliked Osama.
This has already been proven to be misguided information.
5) They, with all their high tech, still haven't caught the somewhat primitive (in comparison) Osama
As you said, he has a lot of followers and is really good at hiding.
6) They don't really seem to try to anymore either
I am sure there are still teams looking for him. However, from all of the drama in American politics right now with Bush leaving, the election, war in Iraq, yada, yada, yada, he just has been pushed to the side in the media until more information comes out.
7) One of the buildings collapsed without a plane crashing in, and it seemed to have looked like a planned demolition
When a building falls, that should be able to create enough shockwaves to knock another building down. Physics.
8)Operation Northwoods; military leaders planed 'terrorist' attacks in the 1960's, to trick people into war with Cuba.
Yeah, the US did it once, and that could very well be a reason as to why we are getting blamed for it again, but just because we did it once doesn't automatically mean we did it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Aug 6, 2008 21:47:52 GMT -5
The US has a history of intervening in foreign affairs? Oh yah, your right, lets count them.
1) 1803-Invaded Tripoli to put a holt on the piracy and other acts of terror in the Mediterranean.
2) 1836-US sends arms and cash to, and openly recognizes the new Republic of Texas.
3) 1863-USS Wyoming sinks Imperial Japanese ships in Japan after western merchant ships in international
waters are fired on.
4)1866-US navy lands an armed shore party to fight Korean war loards after being fired on while doing
sounding for the Korean government in a bay.
5) 1897-US liberates Cuba from Spain.
6) 1902-US occupies the former Spanish position of the Philippines in an attempt to bring order to chaos.
7) 1900-US forces help evacuate westerners from China during the Boxer rebellion, saving many lives.
8) 1912-US Army invades Mexico to hunt for Poncho Via, a criminal killing people on both sides of the
boarder.
9) 1915-US begins to send arms and money to Britain and France, to fight the Imperial Germans.
10) 1917-US expeditionary force lands in France to reinforce the Allied countries.
11) 1919-US expeditionary force lands in Russia in a failed attempt to derail the Red Armies power grab.
12) 1920-US Government supports Panama and its Independents from Columbia.
13) 1936- US citizens (from the American Communist Party) join the Spanish Civil War against Franco and
the Nazis backing him.
14) 1940-US Airman are allowed to join the fight in China, flying US built p-40 war hawks against the
Imperial Japanese. The “Flying Tigers” were paid by the Imperial Chinese.
15) 1941-US officially enters WW2 on the side of the Allies.
16) 1942-US helps to liberate North Africa from the Nazi invaders.
17) 1943-US helps to liberate Italy and Cyprus.
18) 1944-US helps to liberate France, and the Philippines.
19) 1945-US helps to liberate all of Europe, and defeats the Imperial Japanese and the Nazi regime.
20) 1948-49 US “Candy Bombers” bring needed supplies’ to a besieged Berlin in a successful attempt to
defend the western Europe countries from the communists.
21) 1950-US defends South Korea from North Korea and China.
22) 1962-US blockades Cuba in a successful attempt to prevent the placement of communist missiles with
in easy range of the US.
23) 1966-US lands troops in South Vietnam in an attempt to support the South against the Communists.
24) 1975-US Marines fight Communist and Cambodian troops.
25) 1979-US Government starts to send money to Afghan rebels fighting the Russians communists.
26) 1983-The US with help from Jamaica and Barbados invade Grenada and overthrow the military
dictator.
27)1991-The US along with a coalition of 34 other countries liberates Kuwait from Saddam’s Iraqi forces.
28) 1993-US supports the UN peacekeeping operations in the Balkan states.
29) 2002-US forces expel tali ban terrorists from Afghanistan.
30) 2003-US forces expel the Husein government from Iraq.
Now, is the world a better or worse place do to the US?
|
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Aug 6, 2008 23:17:25 GMT -5
Ok. No. 9/11 really happened. 1) the fact that mr Bush needs oil.
2) Arabic countries have oil War for oil is honestly a bucket of crap. Yes, the Arab countries have oil, but, they do not have nearly the amount of oil as we can get from other places in the world. Venezuela has a lot of oil, for instance, and the talk right now is to get oil from the oil sands in Canada, which is estimated to have more oil than all of the Arab countries put together. The oil problem is mostly from the depreciation of the dollar and the adaption of China into the Western culture, but that is a different issue. Unfortunately, Venezuela has a strong socialist government and America, who has spend the better part of fifty years opposing communism, don't really want to be caught indirectly supporting the government of Venezuela by buying their oil. You say talk now as in 6th of August, 2008. That's around seven years after 9/11. So that means they haven't discovered them back then. In addition, the environmental damage caused by the extraction of oil in that region will discourage most people from allowing them to gain oil from that region. The oil problem is much more than the deprecation of the U.S. dollar and growing demand from China. There's also the civil unrest in Nigeria where many of American oil comes from as well as Hurricane Katrina. But that's irrelevant now. 3.) He needs a legitimate reason to attack, or no one would allow him Not sure why this is even an issue. He had no reason to attack until after 9/11. This is an issue as his popularity depends on whether or not he had a reason to attack. Look at today. People know or should know that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or any links between al-Qaeda and Hussein. And now, he's being criticised for that. Well him and the generals and Secretarys of State and Defense. And Bush had some reason to go into Afghanistan before 9/11. Before 9/11, al-Qaeda was involved into two other terrorist attacks. One was the embassy attacks in 1998 in Kenya and Tanzania and the other was the U.S.S. Cole. And while these attacks occurred before the Bush administration, there was no reason why he couldn't have responded to these attacks and instead wait until 9/11 to respond. 4) The fact that they somehow ended up fighting Iraq, a country with much oil and a dictator who actually disliked Osama. [/b] This has already been proven to be misguided information.[/quote] Which part? Iraq has the third largest oil reserve in the world, owning 9.3% of the oil in the world. As for disagreeing with Hussein disliking Osama, we're talking about a secular leader with a religious militant. bin Laden has called Hussein an infidel publicly before and strongly opposed Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. 5) They, with all their high tech, still haven't caught the somewhat primitive (in comparison) Osama [/b] As you said, he has a lot of followers and is really good at hiding. 6) They don't really seem to try to anymore either I am sure there are still teams looking for him. However, from all of the drama in American politics right now with Bush leaving, the election, war in Iraq, yada, yada, yada, he just has been pushed to the side in the media until more information comes out.[/quote] This part I have to agree with smeagollum with. We're talking dense mountain ranges in Pakistan. It's very hard to find anyone there. Plus, just because there isn't any media coverage on that region doesn't imply that they aren't looking for him. Honestly, what would attract more attention on the evening news? 165 people killed in suicide bomb attack in Iraq or Coalition forces tried to look for bin Laden...again. 7) One of the buildings collapsed without a plane crashing in, and it seemed to have looked like a planned demolitionWhen a building falls, that should be able to create enough shockwaves to knock another building down. Physics. Well not just that. They're actually not quite sure how 7 World Trade Center collapsed. Some say the structural steel was exposed to high enough temperatures to melt but it is still relatively inconclusive. 8)Operation Northwoods; military leaders planed 'terrorist' attacks in the 1960's, to trick people into war with Cuba.Yeah, the US did it once, and that could very well be a reason as to why we are getting blamed for it again, but just because we did it once doesn't automatically mean we did it again. Yes but that doesn't mean America's free of blame, now is it? The US has a history of intervening in foreign affairs? Oh yah, your right, lets count them. Yeah, let's do! Umm, where to start? Oh yes. 1822 - America sends former African American slaves to Liberia, a state established for that purpose. This causes mistrust and inevitably unrest in that region for years to come 1833 - Monroe Doctrine ratified, stating that European powers could not interfere with affairs in the newly created American countries. That'll be important later 1845 - Rise of the Manifest Destiny, a belief that America has the God-given right to expand westward to the Pacific. Later used for justification of subjugation and assilimation of Native American tribes, destroying centuries of culture and tradition 1846 - America enters in a war against Mexico, fighting for American immigrants who settled in Mexican areas and declared themselves free from Mexican rule after refusing to comply with Mexican laws (i.e. the slavery laws) 1865-1890 - Indian Wars. America expands westward, forcing Native American tribes of their lands and "Americanised" them. 1893 - America sends U.S. marines to "protect" American business interests in Hawaii, making it impossible to defend the monarchy and allowed the overthrow to happen 1898-1935 - Banana Wars - U.S. military intervention in Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Panama, and Honduras to preserve American commercial interests in those regions 1901 - America forces the Platt Amendment on the newly independent Cuba, stating that Cuba would not transfer Cuban land to any power other than the United States, ensured U.S. intervention in Cuban affairs when the United States deemed necessary, prohibited Cuba from negotiating treaties with any country other than the United States 1903 - Adoption of the Big Stick Diplomacy, allowing America to oppose European actions in the Western Hemisphere as well as allowed America to intervene in the domestic affairs of its neighbours To sum that section up, throughout those years in the pre-First World War, much of American intervention were done solely out of their interest in foreign regions. |
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Aug 7, 2008 1:56:53 GMT -5
Even without the oil shale in Canada, there are vast resources of oil and natural gas both off our shores and in ANWR that can be safely extracted and used now. 30 years of bureaucratic bullshit is what has put us, and oh by the way, rest of the world in the position of rising fuel costs, combined with reduced food production resulting from the failed and misguided policy of turning corn (a major food crop and commodity in it own right) into ethanol that is more expensive to produce, more of a pollutant, and less fuel efficient than crude based gasoline. The simple and honest fact is we haven't received a drop of oil as a result of the war in Iraq, and it is as much the Iraqi people suffering as a result of that political ploy as anyone else. Because we are still the number one consumer of oil in the world, and as you pointed out we would much prefer to do business with allies, the political fall out from the appearance of us being able to purchase oil from a free Iraq puts them at a disadvantage of not being able to sell to their best potential customer without a major crap storm in the media.
First, there has been ample evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, there was documented evidence of Senator Rockefeller of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time going to Syria, a known ally of Saddam Hussein, and informing him of the impending invasion well before it took place. And there is satellite footage of convoys of trucks after that visit and prior to the invasion, heading out of Iraq from suspected weapons sites to Syria. Furthermore, the infamous "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or lack there of excuse propagated in the media is red herring. That was merely one of many reasons given for the invasion of Iraq, not the least of which were crimes against humanity which Hussein was subsequently tried and convicted of in a duly constituted court of the free Iraqi people. The media seems to forget that part. They also forget that the invasion took place after Hussein violated numerous UN resolutions, and with the full cooperation and assistance of many of its member nations. If you want to get into conspiracy theories, you might say that the UN blocked full UN actions to protect its Oil for Food fraud from which the members personally and fraudulently made millions.
As for waiting until 9/11 to respond to the Taliban and Al Qeada, the attacks you mentioned that occurred previously were during the previous administration, and it was their lack of response that led the terrorists to believe they could attack on our soil without repercussion. President Bush had been in office for less than a year when the 9/11 attacks occurred, and was still in the process of cleaning up the mess that had been left of 8 years of downsizing and underfunding our military and intelligence capabilities. Furthermore, a fact that seems to get overlooked constantly is that the Sudanese offered President Clinton Osama Bin Laden on a platter, twice, while he was under indictment here in America, and President Clinton refused.
Politics, as they say, make strange bedfellows. Or, a more Islamic saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In the mountains of papers that were retrieved from Hussein's strongholds after the invasion, there was documentation of meetings between Hussein and Bin Laden's emissaries in preparation for the 9/11 attacks.
Yeah, that.
Inconclusive or not, the idea is moot. What seems to get forgotten is that the Pentagon was also hit that day, and a plane went down in Pennsylvania diverting a more devastating attack in D.C. due to the bravery of the men and women on that plane who were in contact with their loved ones. So we know that not only were they heros, but that their plane was hijacked by Islamic extremists, and was coordinated with the attacks in New York. In today's electronic age, a conspiracy of that magnitude would have been uncovered by now.
Are we free of blame for some nutcases with a God complex deciding to fly planes into our landmarks in order to strike terror into our hearts and force us to bow to the will of Allah? Umm, are you serious? Of course we are free of blame. The fact that we are free, and as a result prosperous, and as a further result generous, while it may make us a target, does not make us at fault.
I'll let Bubba's Dad take this one. He's much more the history buff than I am. But I can say now you might want to go back and recheck your facts on the Mexican/American War.
|
|
|
|
Post by misaki on Aug 7, 2008 5:26:36 GMT -5
I've been reading this debate carefully, and I don't think I really have something usable to add, save for this; I don't think any of the points I mentioned are either falsificated or proven yet, by any of you. It's easy to mistrust a government, but it's also easy to see the government of a country too much as a personification of the country itself, or the US as 'we'. A country is an abstract concept, even when you live in it, it doesn't mean you are your country, like a Borg clan, so please understand I, at least, don't see it that way. I didn't mean to offend anyone and I certainly didn't want to hint there was anything wrong with Americans as people. And though I have to say this has been a very interesting, mature debate so far ( thank you very much, everyone, by the way), I do think some people feel this too much as a personal attack. Smeag, I didn't mean I ever thought 9/11 didn't happen. Of course I believe it happened. Everyone could see the ruins afterwards. I only suggested it may or may not have been an organized attack by another enemy than Osama. And yes, I think enemy would be a proper term for it if it was organized by the government, because it'd be an attack on American citizens. But it's just an idea, and not one of mine. Okay, that was it.  Btw, I have to agree with both Caunion and Bubba's Dad. And that's far from impossible; the country has, like any other, been ruled by many different people with different personalities. Some obviously tried to do good things, and others were undeniably very corrupt. That's not something you can ignore. There have been corrupt, egoistic leaders, just like in every other country. So it's logical that the history of this country, like every other, is a mix of good and bad decisions. Nothing strange about that. I mean, gosh, I wouldn't even start on the history of my own country. I vaguely remember something about the royal family having a lot to do with pirates and other not entirely innocent persons. Etc. etc.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Aug 7, 2008 8:15:47 GMT -5
Ah… A liberal text book view on cherry picked hot button issues of US History. Let us now take an old Conservatives view on some of these issues. And by the way, you never answered my question, that is, do you think the world is better off or worse off because of US intervention, past ad present?
1822-Liberia. This was a misguided attempt to deal with domestic slavery. With the international slave trade banned, the idea was the US could buy the back US slave, and “return” them to Africa, causing slavery to die out in the US ad removing one of the issues causing reginal tensions in the US. As I said, it was a misguided, “feel good” act. That being said, you can hardly blame the troubles in Africa on that.
1833-Monroe doctrine.- This was an attempt at nation security. Europe was trying hard to influence anti republic politics in all of the western hemisphere, for their own interests. After watch most of Europe go through a devastating war 20 years earlier, and with the US standing Military and Navy being so small at the time, diplomacy seemed the way to go. By the way, all of the European powers ignored it.
1845-Manifest Destiny. With the ROT petitioning to become a state, and with no other viable country invested in the west, of course the US saw expansion as the way to go. Although places like Colorado were owned by Mexico, they had few people there and no military. As for the westward expansion being a god given right to the US, well, we do now go from sea to shining sea, so maybe that was true?
1846-The Mexican War. You are off a bit here. The Republic of Texas rebelled against the Santa Anna government in 1836, and was its own country for Ten years. When the ROT became a state in 1845, Mexico refused to recognize this, just as it had refused to recognize Texas independence. Any Mexican laws regarding slavery, or anything else, were a non issue in the ROT. The original Texas Revolution did happen in part because of slavery laws in Mexico, but that was 10 years before the US-Mexican war. The revolution also happened because these immigrants were promised some things, and the Santa Anna government changed its mind. By the way, these immigrants were invited into the territory and promised land, as a way for the Mexican government to pacify the Native American population with out spilling Mexican blood. American immigrants were just doing jobs Mexicans would not do. (Kill Indians, clearing fields, live in harsh and primitive areas.) In short, the war was between the US and Mexico was over boarder issues. Oh, and by the way, the US captured and occupied everything from Mexico City north. We gave back everything south of the Rio Grand and paid cash for the rest, places that had very little Mexican Government influence. Even California was at that time, sparsely populated.
1865-1890-The Indian wars were harsh and probably wrong, however, it was no different then any other war against an indigenes population. Ask the Highland Scots about that. That being said, the US government has tried ever since to make things right, often causing more trouble then good. And by the way, Canada and Mexico did the same thing but for some reason the have no Historical Guilt staining them.
1893-1903-Most of these issues you have brought up easily fall into the category of National Security. Before the invention of nuclear power, ships needed coal, and later oil to power them. The US Navy by then was Americas first line of defense and diplomacy. (Gun boat Diplomacy).
As to this last statement, how is this a bad thing? All countries look out for their foreign interests, and for good reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Aug 7, 2008 8:27:39 GMT -5
Your kidding right? The US is We. We the people… In this country, the government is the personification of the people. And by the way, The nation you live in is not an abstract idea. It is real, and you should be proud of you country, as it is an extension of yourself. This is why we vote and pay attention to politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Aug 7, 2008 11:01:43 GMT -5
And by the way, you never answered my question, that is, do you think the world is better off or worse off because of US intervention, past ad present? Unfortunately words like good and bad (of which better and worse are derivatives of) are relative both to the person observing the situation and to the people enduring the situation. While I do not deny the fact that there are several times when America has intervened in foreign affairs that has led to the benefit of several countries (most prominently the Second World War), it is very difficult to say if the world would be better off with or without a country. There are numerous examples where a country has done beneficial actions but there's an equal amount of examples where a country has done harmful actions. And thus, I really can not answer that question, Bubba's dad, because while I have listed cases where America has done wrong, there are, as you mentioned, cases where America has done right and it is impossible to predict what would have happened if America was not created. Take, for example, the Second World War. Common belief is had American not entered in the war, Nazi Germany would have controlled all of Europe and North Africa while Japan controlled much of Asia and the Pacific and the Americas are only a leap across the pond. But we do not know for certain that would happen. History is complex, unpredictable. We can not know what would happen until it happens. There are hundreds and hundreds of different factors that lead up to a point in history. I hope that has answered your question sufficiently. |
|
|
|
Post by misaki on Aug 7, 2008 13:03:25 GMT -5
^ I can only agree. I mean, what was good to one group of people was probably disastrous for another group. Your kidding right? The US is We. We the people… In this country, the government is the personification of the people. And by the way, The nation you live in is not an abstract idea. It is real, and you should be proud of you country, as it is an extension of yourself. This is why we vote and pay attention to politics. No, I'm not kidding at all. I guess this is just a different way of viewing things. Of course, the government is chosen by the people at some point. But that doesn't mean everyone always agrees with everything they do, that's ridiculous. And yes, I think a country is an abstract idea. Of course, the people in my country are real, no duh. But a country isn't as much of a 'we' as some people think it to be. It's just a group of individuals who had the luck/bad luck to be born in a certain place and now have to find a way to coexist without killing each other all the time, at least, that's the way it seems to me. And borders are just a result of people trying to gain as much as possible for themselves and fighting other people to do so. Not that there's anything wrong with it. In fact, I think it's healthy; it proves most of us like living. But yeah, the people here (the Netherlands) probably think about it differently anyway. Patriotism in the American sense of the word is seen as somewhat strange here. For example, I don't know if I'm comfortable with the idea of greeting the flag. If I moved over to the US, I'd probably try to avoid it. I'm an individual, just like everyone else, not a part of some huge entity. Yes, I'm Dutch, but I am, in the first place, human. I could seriously care less for pride about countries. I think people giving their life for their country, or the idea of their country, instead of for people they love, is one of the weirdest things the human race has done altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by melissacato on Sept 8, 2008 9:55:10 GMT -5
Notice how they changed the word to "IN" alienable as in "right to live" or "collective asset" verses the US Constitution which in fact is "UN" alienable meaning "gift from the creator to a the individual" also meaning can NOT be taken. BIG difference. This Charter gets interesting too, because it was adopted by the GS on September 11, 2001 in Lima Peru. Things that make ya go Hummm ... check it out here ... www.oas.org/OASpage/eng/Documents/Democractic_Charter.htm and of course for those of us who need to address this via opposition. www.oas.org/documents/eng/memberstates.asp?sCode=USA#Inicio ohhh and the Charter it's self ... www.oas.org/juridico/english/charter.htmlUnalienable = You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights. Inalienable = You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. |
|
