Everyone Stay Tune

Opinions, Editorials and Discussion

Moderators: Abou Jamra, Prince Cadmus II

Re: help wanted

Postby GWB » Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:24 am

There is no other reason a country would be part of the UN if it does not adhere to its basic laws. By isolating a nation, one has to fend for themselves which is a most improbable scenario concerning today's world. Your argument GWB bases its foundations simply on the assumption that "the government is illegitimate and unconsitutional", an Aounist/opposition regurgitation spewed over and over and over again, this has nothing to do with your own individual thought pattern or research. Now snce I have already addressed that in previous posts, there is no use repeating it in this one.


Now lets try this again. This time in english. Putting words together in a line doesnt make a sentance.
GWB
junior member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:01 am

Postby Prince Cadmus II » Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:14 am

GWB: When Russia attends the UN, does that mean it is making a treaty with the USA?

When Iran sends its delegates to participate in the UN, does that mean the USA has not declared war on Iran?

Mate, a body that represents all nations is not an actual country in itself. The Lebanese Constitutional Law that I quoted specifically refers to when Lebanon is doing business with another country, say for example:

The government cannot unilaterally declare war with Syria, suddenly by itself declare it an enemy country on its own accord. This needs the authority of the president. This is what that Article of the constitution is speaking about. Stop trying to make excuses for stupid ideas that are spread around the opposition.

The United Nations is no such country to be identified as being bound to that Article of the Constitution. For Lebanon is part of the UN and is thus bound by basic UN law in order to protect its rights as an independent country. If people like you wish to brush that off, then it means we go back to the Middle Ages where lands can be conquered and claimed with a flag pole pitched into the ground.

I also doubt you have read the UN Charter.
Lebanon was a founding member of this, and so it signed to this and this can be enacted with or without anyone's consent, have a read:

CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
"Upon the Tsurian sea the people live who style themselves Phoenicians...
These were the first great founders of the world
Founders of cities and of mighty states"
User avatar
Prince Cadmus II
senior member
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:23 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Charbel » Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:16 am

then it means we go back to the Middle Ages where lands can be conquered and claimed with a flag pole pitched into the ground.



errrr...HELLO???? This is Lebanon your talking about.
Charbel
advanced member
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:50 am

Postby GWB » Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:07 am

Prince Cadmus II wrote:GWB: When Russia attends the UN, does that mean it is making a treaty with the USA?

When Iran sends its delegates to participate in the UN, does that mean the USA has not declared war on Iran?

Mate, a body that represents all nations is not an actual country in itself. The Lebanese Constitutional Law that I quoted specifically refers to when Lebanon is doing business with another country, say for example:

The government cannot unilaterally declare war with Syria, suddenly by itself declare it an enemy country on its own accord. This needs the authority of the president. This is what that Article of the constitution is speaking about. Stop trying to make excuses for stupid ideas that are spread around the opposition.

The United Nations is no such country to be identified as being bound to that Article of the Constitution. For Lebanon is part of the UN and is thus bound by basic UN law in order to protect its rights as an independent country. If people like you wish to brush that off, then it means we go back to the Middle Ages where lands can be conquered and claimed with a flag pole pitched into the ground.

I also doubt you have read the UN Charter.
Lebanon was a founding member of this, and so it signed to this and this can be enacted with or without anyone's consent, have a read:

CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm



When you can convince, confuse. Stop this rubbish.

No. not everything the US sits at the UN it is making a treaty with russia. When the US sign an agreement at the UN it is agreeing with all other signing members.

Who cares that all members of the UN have agreed the basic principles of human rights. It is irrelevant. What is important is the majority asked the member states that comprise the UN to set up an investigation in Lebanon without permission or consultation with the president. Clearly against the letter and the spirit of the constitution.
GWB
junior member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:01 am

Postby haroun » Thu Sep 27, 2007 6:06 am

GWB wrote:Who cares that all members of the UN have agreed the basic principles of human rights. It is irrelevant. What is important is the majority asked the member states that comprise the UN to set up an investigation in Lebanon without permission or consultation with the president. Clearly against the letter and the spirit of the constitution.


Good boy,

Do you consider that Syrian basha, who was shoved down our throat and surrounded himself with every terror organization in the country a president? Do you condier this person who never raise an eyebrow for the killing of his prime minister, a handfull of MPs and dozens of fellow Lebanese civilians a human being?. This guy who defied the Patriarch and all political leaders in the country and the world except Ahmadidijaj and assasinassad deserves the fate of Chowshisco or Saddam in the least.

Don't bring up this ugly speedo model or use him to support you views. I don't know how much you've seen of Lebanon before his excellency was placed in office in 89, but today the consesus is that it is 10000 times worse than the minute he raise his right hand. About that constitution you're reading I suggest you put it to good use somewhere private in you home, because as long as it allows the formation of terrorists and gives them free hand to train, operate and shoot missiles from behind my home it's a worthless document.

The UN Security council ya GWB doesn't need to discuss its resolutions with te aggressors or their proxies. Once adopted the resolution become laws and in some cases, thy may be implemented by force. Please I dare you to come back with that old song Israel...

شمعون: حرام أن يعير احد عون أهمية لأن دواءه ليس عندنا بل في العصفورية
الجوزو: لقد سقط لبنان وسقطت حكوماته، بفضل إرهاب حزب الله
User avatar
haroun
senior member
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Under the kharroube

Postby GWB » Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:04 pm

i recall you saying earlier in this thread that the law is the law. Is this only relevant when you agree with the law or is it applied in all circumstances?
GWB
junior member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:01 am

Postby Prince Cadmus II » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:11 am

GWB if you seriously believed that the "law is the law" then you would accept the fact that the government is the government that was elected in 2005 whether you approved of it or not, and you would wait until the next parliamentary elections for another turn to show your colours.

How about you act like a real opposition if thats where you believe your heart lies, be a real opposition instead of acting like a bunch of sore losers who arrogantly can't accept defeat in the last election in 2005, pretending instead to be the true guardians of the republic, brandishing every excuse under the sun for people to believe they are the legitimate heirs to the throne.

If you wish for Lebanon to become a 1 party state dictatorship like Syria and the rest, then keep going about your ways of denial and withdrawal and don't participate in anything when you don't like (can't accept) the outcome. But remember all you're doing is making things worse. Boycotting should be abolished at all costs, it doesn't do anything. By not acting like a real opposition, you are allowing the government to take a free run on matters while the opposition people run around like headless chickens and parrots, victimising themselves and regurgitating political cliches and not contributing one part to the progression of the republic.

On the contrary, it just proves the opposition is just as air-headed and arrogant as the government is. So why, in that respect, would anyone fire the government (on charges of illegitimacy) to replace them with the opposing current since they are both of the same arrogance and stupidity?
This is clearly a waste of time in any logical man's eyes.

Also, the Article of the Constitution that refers to International Treaties clearly does not apply with respect to the UN and its resolutions. I have explained it more than a few times to you yet you refuse to understand it. Perhaps you should ask for legal counsel on that Article and clarify your stand on it because your argument so far does not carry much weight.
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
"Upon the Tsurian sea the people live who style themselves Phoenicians...
These were the first great founders of the world
Founders of cities and of mighty states"
User avatar
Prince Cadmus II
senior member
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:23 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby GWB » Fri Sep 28, 2007 4:21 am

GWB if you seriously believed that the "law is the law" then you would accept the fact that the government is the government that was elected in 2005 whether you approved of it or not, and you would wait until the next parliamentary elections for another turn to show your colours
.

if the govt acts within the law then it should be allowed to exist through its full term. the problem is this government refuses to do so. I totally agree that a if a govt is legally voted in then it should stay its full term. You shoudl also respect the president as the president if you think the 'law is the law' 'you cant have your cake and eat it too' :)

How about you act like a real opposition if thats where you believe your heart lies, be a real opposition instead of acting like a bunch of sore losers who arrogantly can't accept defeat in the last election in 2005, pretending instead to be the true guardians of the republic, brandishing every excuse under the sun for people to believe they are the legitimate heirs to the throne.


Look at the reason why the govt isnt considered legitimate. i thought you were independant. Actions speak louder than words. It is teh government that is in power and is making laws and breaking them. It is your job as an independant if you truely are to make the government accountable.


If you wish for Lebanon to become a 1 party state dictatorship like Syria and the rest, then keep going about your ways of denial and withdrawal and don't participate in anything when you don't like (can't accept) the outcome. But remember all you're doing is making things worse. Boycotting should be abolished at all costs, it doesn't do anything
.

Boycotting and protests are the democratic right of all citizens. Unless you dont support freedom.


Also, the Article of the Constitution that refers to International Treaties clearly does not apply with respect to the UN and its resolutions. I have explained it more than a few times to you yet you refuse to understand it. Perhaps you should ask for legal counsel on that Article and clarify your stand on it because your argument so far does not carry much weight


Just saying it doesnt make it true. Once again you repeat your stupid rubbish. consult a lawyer in any state in the world and ask them if they consider negotiations with the UN and an international negotiation between states. have i said this is rubbish?
GWB
junior member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:01 am

Postby Prince Cadmus II » Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:37 am

GWB wrote:if the govt acts within the law then it should be allowed to exist through its full term.

Rubbish. Unless the government is formally liquidated, then it shall continue to exist whether you like it or not. The government can be liquidated by either the Prime Minister stepping down, or the President firing the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister is resigned, then his cabinet goes with him. Of course you obviously didn't read that section of the Constitution did you? No I didn't think so. Typical Aounist parrot.

GWB wrote:the problem is this government refuses to do so.

Please give some proof and cite valid examples this time.

GWB wrote:I totally agree that a if a govt is legally voted in then it should stay its full term.

No I don't believe you totally agree with that because you just contradicted your earlier statement regarding this. The 2005 general elections showed this, yet you still believe it is "illegitimate". Rubbish again. Article 37 covers Vote of No-confidence, yet that hasn't been invoked at all. Article 69 covers the resignation of the government, yet no part of it applies to the current government according to your accusation.
Article 69 [Government Resignation]

(1) The Government is considered resigned in the following circumstances:
a. if the Prime Minister resigns;
b. if it loses more than a third of the members specified in the Decree forming it;
c. if the Prime Minister dies;
d. at the beginning of the term of the President of the Republic;
e. at the beginning of the term of the Chamber of Deputies;
f. when it loses the confidence of the Chamber of Deputies based on the Chamber's initiative or based on the Council's initiative to gain the Chamber's confidence.
(2) Ministers are to be dismissed by a Decree signed by the President and the Prime Minister in accordance with Article 65 of the constitution.
(3) When the Council resigns or is considered resigned, the Chamber of Deputies is automatically considered in extraordinary session until a new Council has been formed and has gained the Chamber's confidence.


So what exactly does your accusation of illegitimacy base itself upon? Give me 1 article of the constitution that backs up your claims just in case I may have missed it.

GWB wrote:You shoudl also respect the president as the president if you think the 'law is the law' 'you cant have your cake and eat it too' :)

Once more for the dummy, ACCORDING to the CONSTITUTION, the Lebanon is (under the Preamble parts (a) and (b)) a "sovereign free and independent country" and "Lebanon is also a founding and active member of the United Nations Organization and abides by its covenants and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Government shall embody these principles in all fields and areas without exception."

Mate, when Syria had its troops all over the country in 2004, this was certainly not free and sovereign. Physically and legally, Syria had passed its legitimacy in accordance with the Taif Accord, prolonged its stay and kept milking the nation for all it was worth. This was certainly not of free will, of sovereignty and independence. The president's term was extended then, legally, I don't doubt that, because it is provided for in Chapter II of the Constitution which involves constitutional amendments in Articles 76-79.
The amendment for the extension of Lahoud's term was a violation of the preamble since the Lebanese Nation was not in official form of independence and free will.


GWB wrote:Look at the reason why the govt isnt considered legitimate. i thought you were independant. Actions speak louder than words. It is teh government that is in power and is making laws and breaking them. It is your job as an independant if you truely are to make the government accountable.

Try stating that reason in your accusation.
I've asked you this plenty of times before, but you are too arrogant to answer it properly. Why can't you back your accusations up with some valid examples? If you wish to accuse someone of something, you are generally meant to say what it is, citing valid examples. It is really pathetic to go around accusing without proving why. Remember it was me who had to QUOTE Article 52 of the Constitution just for you because you couldn't even do so yourself! I'm not meant to be doing your homework for you. I would make the government accountible where I can see fit to do so. Instead of telling me what to do, how about you do your own homework first?


GWB wrote:Boycotting and protests are the democratic right of all citizens. Unless you dont support freedom.

NO. Not all countries support boycotting. In Lebanon you are allowed of course, but I am just saying it is wrong and shouldn't be allowed. Looking for every excuse for civil unrest by being a legal pain in the ass does not necessarily mean avoiding moral repugnancy. Australia for example is one of the very few countries in the world that practises compulsory voting, do you think that is freedom? No it isn't, but it is a duty to be fulfilled by all citizens to ensure a better outcome. Boycotting is simply a waste of time and has more devastating effects on a nation than it has benefits.
Secondly, for your information protests are only allowed if the legal process of organising one has been fulfilled first. Burning tyres, damaging property and blockading the general public from going to work and going about their daily business is definitely not a democratic right. Freedom is not guaranteed unless taken in the correct and orderly manner.


GWB wrote:Just saying it doesnt make it true. Once again you repeat your stupid rubbish. consult a lawyer in any state in the world and ask them if they consider negotiations with the UN and an international negotiation between states. have i said this is rubbish?

Stating it with examples, as I have done, makes it true. On the contrary, you however do not. I have gone to all extents in defining why UN Charters and Resolutions are NOT TREATIES since they were already signed for to be upheld and accepted in the LEB CONSTITUTION PREAMBLE (PART B), and that because a treaty is a pact between two or more states. THE UN IS NOT A STATE! When countries provide assistance to the UN, they exist FIRST AND FOREMOST under the flag of the UN and not their own countries, as per their duty to international peace. By accepting UN resolutions, countries are not making individual agreements with the countries providing such assistance. The UN is a medium of understanding, promoting peace and security and can only be viewed and used as such. Your only excuse is that the UN provided security to Lebanon after the war in 2006, and that they accepted the Hariri Tribunal. Well, unfortunately for you and your poor sense of ammunition fire, Chapter 7, once again for the dummy, Chapter 7 of the UN Charter allows for this without even the consent of Lebanon. How on earth do you think they tried Slobodan Milosevic? Did it need the consent of the whole government? No. All it needed was an affected party to launch a request for it.

I asked you to do your homework, yet you seem to be throwing it back at me? You are a pathetic excuse for an opposition apologist. You haven't backed up any of your claims so far in the thousands of words you have written in this thread, all you have done is accuse accuse accuse and reply with childish clauses when asked to account for your accusations.

What you believe and what the reality of the world is, are two very different things I'm afraid.
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
"Upon the Tsurian sea the people live who style themselves Phoenicians...
These were the first great founders of the world
Founders of cities and of mighty states"
User avatar
Prince Cadmus II
senior member
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:23 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby GWB » Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:33 am

Before i reply to the rest of your clearly angry and abusive message. i would like to say i have consulted an international law lawyer an the UN isnt considered a state for the purposes of treaties. I retract this facet of my argument.
GWB
junior member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:01 am

Postby Prince Cadmus II » Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:34 pm

Thankyou for double checking that.

Perhaps a criticism against the Siniora government could start with looking into anything that was made after the resignations of the 6 ministers in November 2006. I know AJ will be on this case immediately...
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
"Upon the Tsurian sea the people live who style themselves Phoenicians...
These were the first great founders of the world
Founders of cities and of mighty states"
User avatar
Prince Cadmus II
senior member
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:23 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Abou Jamra » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:38 pm

Haroun

What do you think of the Paris meetings? (GMA and Harriri)
Image
Image

"My expectations as always are low" Haroun on Jieh council
User avatar
Abou Jamra
senior member
 
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:31 am

Postby Abou Jamra » Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:42 am

قال الحريري لعون: حلمي أن أراك رئيساً...
لم يكن الحريري بمفرده عند لقاء الجنرال، ولا الأخير كذلك. دار الحديث مكثفاً يومها، في السياسة والنيابة والوزارة والرئاسة، حتى بلغ مرحلة متقدمة من الشفافية والمصارحة.

قيل إن الحريري الشاب نظر إلى الجنرال نظرة بوح، قبل أن يسرّ إليه بكلام مفاجئ. قال له: أنا أعتبرك مثل والدي، وحلمي أن أراك رئيساً للجمهورية، وأكون رئيساً للحكومة في عهدك.

عن جريدة الأخبار | للإتصال بنا | الإعلانات | الإشتراكات
جميع الحقوق محفوظة، ٢٠٠٧، جريدة الأخبار
Image
Image

"My expectations as always are low" Haroun on Jieh council
User avatar
Abou Jamra
senior member
 
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:31 am

Postby haroun » Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:59 am

It's a lose-lose situation for Aoun and a win-win for Sheik Saad.

We all know that March 14 leaders are on the record that they will only vote only for a March 14 personality. Aoun, by agreeing to this meeting, it means he's considering going back to M14; which will be another flip flop and a devastating blow to his leadership position in the teghyeer and teslee7 shop.

All 7ariri wanted is to be able to say that he tried all avenues to convene 2/3 majority but it's not his fault that the Syro Irani block refused, so he's justified in electing a president with 50+1- welle bado yesir, yasir.

Short of 7ariri telling Aoun "we are going to make you the next president" Aoun will come out of this meeting as the big loser.

About the rag you quoted and took pain to protect their copyright, I say they misinterpreted what they heard 7ariri telling Aoun: "Only in my dreams I like to see you president."

Cheers

شمعون: حرام أن يعير احد عون أهمية لأن دواءه ليس عندنا بل في العصفورية
الجوزو: لقد سقط لبنان وسقطت حكوماته، بفضل إرهاب حزب الله
User avatar
haroun
senior member
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Under the kharroube

Postby Prince Cadmus II » Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:15 am

Perhaps the copyright label should instead be a trademark of that newspaper...although it should already be known that such silly statements would only come off that printing press in the first place...
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
"Upon the Tsurian sea the people live who style themselves Phoenicians...
These were the first great founders of the world
Founders of cities and of mighty states"
User avatar
Prince Cadmus II
senior member
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:23 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Politics - Lebanon

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron