Signals.Cpl

By you and who else?

What does that prove? That foreigners own companies in Canada? Are we to assume that every corporation owned by a foreigner murder at will? Honestly back up the claim with facts.

So, irrelevant, if either of them decide to do something neither the ICJ nor the UNSC can or will do anything because the law that applies to us and every other non veto nation does not apply to the 5 Veto Powers.

What was the original question? It was wether or not the UN is useful or not, my issue is not with Russia because everything is stacked in their favour. I tried to point out that the UN is irrelevant, its useless because IF it came to a scenario like the one I described Canada will end up loosing while you are trying to claim that it will NEVER come to that. You are basing the UN's worth on an assumption that Russia will never do this therefore we will never have to find out yet when the US proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the UN is a useless organization that puts select nations above the law you had nothing to say about that. You can bury your head in the sand and assume that the problem will never come up because it is beneficial for Russia to use official channels yet you have no guarantee that if those official channels fail to produce results for Russia that they will back down. Its quite simple, Russia is presenting a case that cannot fail because one way or another if they really wanted to they can force their will on the losing party(Canada) because they control the all important veto in the only avenue of enforcement open to Canada. The Us did the same to Nicaragua, the national interests of the Americans dictated that they shouldn't pay anything and they did not recognize the courts decision, when Nicaragua went to the UNSC they got nowhere because the US blocked all resolutions pertaining to the issue.

Canada gave the US permission to cross at any time they wanted as long as we get a heads up, but we had no way to enforce our ownership and still have no way to enforce it so its useless.

And you have something to base that assumption on? I don't see how you can say a CT unit in Alberta would lead to oil companies murdering people at will without explanation.

You don't think regular people will kill to protect their interest? Hope you're not that naive.

Murder at will? Reading too many novels?

If that is a source of income for any level of government then by all means that government is well within their rights to protect that source.

This is not about PM Harper or this POS who shot up Eaton Centre, this is about your total disregard for your own opinions. You claim that one deserves to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and then you move to another subject and claim that someone is guilty even though they have not gone through a court. This is a great example of hypocrisy as you claim that 5 people can look at the PM and say he is guilty and its ok because its the Court of Public Opinion and then when the same 5 guys look at this piece of trash and say he is guilty that suddenly becomes wrong since its no longer the court of public opinion? Come on man decide, you can have one or the other, you can't pick and choose depending on your mood. Its either both are in the "Court of Public Opinion" and guilt or innocence is an opinion or they are both protected by principal innocent until proven guilty and thus its wrong to claim they are criminals without a conviction. I was asking you to take a stand, any stand rather then taking all stands you on the other hand make statements that are so vague that you can switch your argument and you are trying to bring the "robocalls" here. It has nothing to do with that, all I wanted was you to tell everyone why you flipflop on every issue.

So thats the question? Well the Russians would veto any resolution that is passed up by Canada(should it come to that) to enforce a ruling by the ICJ. That means if the Russians present a case to the ICJ, and at the same time they start digging in the contested territory Canada can do nothing but wait for a ruling from the ICJ. Now if it goes in Russia's favour to bad... but if it goes in Canada's favour then we are at the mercy of Russia to comply with the ruling. If Russia determines that there is more benefit in occupying and developing the land in question then they will ignore the ruling... at this point Canada makes a request to the UNSC in the form of a resolution to force Russia to comply this could range from stern warning to an extremely unlikely enforcement through war and everything in between.At this point we will already know the outcome since Russia will shoot any resolution to force them to comply with the courts ruling meaning if the resolution calls for economic sanctions then Russia can veto it and there is NOTHING we can do about that hence Russia is above the law when it concerns the ICJ.

I'm actually growing tired with your idiocy: Russia has claims, if those claims overlap with Canada's claims and Russia deems it beneficial they will win out one way or another. We can have 1 trillion judgements by the ICJ and write up resolution after resolution and they will veto any action by the SC. That means if one side is not cooperating then the other side goes to the SC and asks for a resolution to FORCE the noncooperative side to move(Nicaragua v USA) this would include anything from stern warning to war and everything in between. But since Russia has a veto power they are not under any obligation to accept a ruling from the ICJ because the ICJ cannot enforce its rulings only the UNSC can enforce those ruling if one side does not accept and the UNSC will not be helpful if the non-cooperative nation is a veto power... Seeing as you have said absolutely nothing about Nicaragua I am taking that as your way of admitting that you are wrong... waldo, next time pick a subject you know something about rather then engage in subject you know nothing about... You are welcome for the free lesson though... I know you won't admit it but I taught you something.

You still ignore Nicaragua and the US...

Lets use other countries in this "imaginary" scenario... Nicaragua has a problem with the US, they bring it in front of the ICJ and the ruling goes in favour of Nicaragua. The US promptly says that the ruling essentially does not apply to them and they will not accept it and thus the only means of appeal for the smaller country in the imaginary scenario is to go to the SC and ask for a resolution to be passed in order to force the US to comply with the ruling...guess what the US would do did? They used the veto power that was given to them. Now if the US doesn't give a sh*t about the UN or the ICJ what makes you think that Russia does? You can whine about it, but the reality is the the UN is a useless incompetent waste of money for any and all nations. I think the League of Nations proved that we need the US to play along for any world organization to actually work seeing as its the one member that everyone turns to. You seem to ignore that this has happened and still believe that the Russians will listen to the ICJ and the UN and behave, whereas the rest of us who do not live in WaldoWorld see that a nation will look out for its own interests above the interests of others, just like everyday people look out for themselves and their families first. The reality is that you are arguing about a subject you know nothing about, and you keep on switching the argument in order to exasperate your opposition in order for them to just walkaway so that you can "win".

Best thing was all those people crying in to the camera about the death of democracy in the US...right after people democratically reelected the Governor. Its democracy if you vote for us its tyranny if you vote for the other guy.

So what was the issue at hand? That someone said he was guilty? The public court of opinion? And you tried to tell us that he wasn't guilty?

And judgement from the ICJ is non binding for any SC permanent member BECAUSE ICJ judgements can only be brought to the UNSC for enforcement and the 5 permanent members US,UK,France,Russia and China can veto any resolution that is trying to enforce a ruling by the ICJ that went against them.

What is the question you initially asked? I also see you had nothing to say about The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in 1984 ICJ case... lovely how your argument doesn't work and all you whine about is someone fabricating something. You claimed you were going to "school" me on how the UNSC works then you switched over to a what-if scenario, just like you claimed the US is to blame for Rwanda because they didn't provide APC's and when someone called you out on it you started whining about people concentrating on the APC and not the issue in question. KEep whining and keep changing the issue you discuss.

Whats the question? Because the original question was why the UN is useless, and I gave you a what if scenario and a real event you seem to see you are wrong yet you don't want to admit it and thus you try to put attention on what Russia will or will not do as opposed to what they CAN and CANNOT do.

So you are saying that the UN and ICJ work perfectly? They are fair to all nations? No one has an unfair advantage? You started this argument then you brought in an argument from another thread where you tried to "school" me on the UNSC at which point it came out you know nothing about the UNSC and now you are trying to distract the conversation by saying Russia will never do it... its been done before irrelevant by which nations but its been done before so my original point stands that the UN and ICJ are useless waste of money. We should not waste time and money on those worthless organizations until they become more respectable in the world through proper reorganization. I'm telling you if Russia WANTED TO they can have any piece of land that is under dispute as the final say lies with them and not the ICJ. You can say that they will never do it, but that is irrelevant because at the end of the day Canada has to depend on the goodwill of Russia to leave it alone should the ICJ rule against them.

Except Quebec?

And you are trying to confuse the issue simply because you don't know what you are talking about. Russia will try to get their way through the proper means but should that fail they have no worries because they could go ahead and still take what they deem as theirs regardless because they have the final say. Now when you have 5 nations who can and do use that power to ignore the ICJ then the ICJ is nothing but a useless waste of money. Since the UNSC is designed to fail plain and simple, as every one of those 5 nations has its own interests to worry about and as such they couldn't care less about an issue if it counter to what their national interests are. You look at my scenario and say that Russia is the bogeyman, to me they aren't, to me it simply is business. If over the next generation the resources in the north become more valuable as other places start to run out, why would Russia willingly leave a piece of valuable property that it deems its own? They can try all the legitimate means and if that doesn't work they can go the other way and just occupy the contested land and then block any UNSC resolutions pertaining to the issue just like The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in 1984 ICJ case where the ICJ ruled, and the US decided it won't play along and when Nicaragua went to the UNSC care to guess what happened? You don't have to be the bogeyman to look out for yourself and you don't have to go out of your way to piss off other countries without using legitimate means. Thats why the UN is useless, because it is designed to fail as 5 different nations have 5 different sets of national interests and as such vote based on what good for them rather then whats good for the UN and since they have veto power they can and do make the UN useless.

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in 1984 ICJ case

Nope, intelligent people do not agree with you... Its not kissing ass, its reality we need the US a little more then they need us...

So should the students.