Signals.Cpl

It's actually quite simple, to me this is the failure of the Canadian justice system, somebody who behaved like an animal, brutally hurt another human being and proceeded to refuse help over the term of his incarceration at which point he is released to reoffend. Looks like you don't stand for much but I do and to me this is outrageous I don't have to pretend to be outraged I am, this POS is out in the public where he poses a serious risk because he refused treatment which to me means he finds his behaviour perfectly acceptable. Now as for the animal in question, to me he is guilty, remember the court of public opinion? I say he is guilty based on what I believe.

The UN is irrelevant because there are at least 5 nations that are above the "law" I can explain it to you slower, smaller words or in a different language but I don't think you will grasp the concept. Those claims that the Russians have in the arctic? They could send in their miners and we would just sit on our asses and do nothing because they don't have to abide by the Ruling of the ICJ because the final yay or nay rests in their hands. If we ever had a dispute with either Russia or the US the ICJ would be nothing but a lame duck whose ruling will be irrelevant. A very good example of the "usefulness" of the ICJ and the UN in general is The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in 1984 ICJ case where the US lost out to Nicaragua, eventually it made its way up to the SC and the US Veto's. There are 5 countries that will ALWAYS get their way if it was important to them.

Completely relevant, police state that they wanted the public to know because of his potential to re-offend. Now this seems like a failure in the justice system when the police likely would have to explain to the next victim or the family of the next victim why he was released while still dangerous.

Person A: Not convicted of a crime at this point but in the eyes of the public he is guilty. THATS WRONG Person B: Not convicted of a crime at this point but in the eyes of a minority within the general public he is guilty. THATS RIGHT...wait doesn't sound right, giving rights to one person and refusing to acknowledge that another person has the exact same right... Innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone, or no one it cannot be someone in the middle. I can say that Mr Husbands is a violent sex offender, he is violent (The shooting) he is accused of the sexual assault and he has prior history all of which I as a member of the public and I assume thousands if not millions of people(Court of Public Opinion ) in Canada will see it the same way.

Nope, see an ICJ ruling is final, the only means of appeal is to go to the SC and ask for action from the SC. Now lets assume that its Canada and Russia over a piece of land in the Arctic, if the Russians start developing a piece of land that is claimed by both sides Canada can go to the ICJ, and the ICJ will rule on the subject. Should the ruling go against Canada we cannot bring it back to the ICJ until we have new evidence to present that might change the ruling. But should the ICJ rule in favour of Canada, Russia can continue occupying the contested land and our only avenue is to request the SC to intervene...now care to guess who has veto power in the SC? This means that we can have 14/15 voting for us and only Russia voting against a resolution to pass and the resolution does not pass... Care to explain where I got it wrong?

Please do.

Here is one for the rehabilitation of prisoners... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/06/08/toronto-police-sex-offender-warning.html

I wonder why they need our money then...

Because its a stopgap measure, nothing permanent. I'm all for avoiding economic hardship for us by helping the EU but we need to assured that there will not be a repetition of this in a few years.

http://www.un.org/en/africarenewal/subjindx/134peac2.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/568566.stm And by far my favourite, the UN putting the Rwandan government in the SC and thereby in the decision making body that was meant to stop the genocide that the Rwandan Government was committing at that time. The FC sends intel to the SC telling them that the Rwandan government and militia's are storing illegal weapons and the SC refuses to act on the intel until the Rwandans have the chance to remove said weapons.

Then answer this question, how would 10,100,1,000 or 1,000,000 APCs do anything to stop the Genocide if UNAMIR had only 270 soldiers? The force commander who happened to be Canadian stated that the APCs were required to be effective in the field not prevent the Genocide, he needed more troops for that. The UN looked for donors to provide the APCs and ONLY the US came forward with an offer at which point they stopped looking. UNAMIR getting the APCs would have done nothing in the prevention of the Genocide, rather it would have only assisted in the movements of the few soldiers that remained.

[/indent] Great, APCs... you do realize that the APCs would have done nothing to prevent the genocide? APC are nothing but vehicles. There was the Security council, and then there was the world even if the SC had voted no one was willing to field any troops except for the previously mentioned nations who had soldiers of questionable quality. The US shares blame in events of 1994 just lie every other nations including Canada, you can pull the anti-American bull and put the blame squarely on them but the end of the day the world failed, the UN failed, and it failed because it was designed and destined to fail.

Im still waiting on the source as to how Iceland has "all the same resources we have".

Is that your argument? I don't know of any wars Canada has "created" but I love your argument as childish as it is...

I agree with you, we need to conscript 250,000 people if the need and send them to battle, the once that survive will be that much smarter, the once that die well survival of the fittest... And then what? How do we get the fighters e need, or the frigates or the tanks? How do we build up the logistics needed to support an expanding force? Who would be responsible for equipping us in a short notice? The US? What happens if there is a natural disaster? Do we start discussing how to organize a military unit to send there? How do you intent to train CSOR or JTF2 in short notice? While we are at it why not disband the Fire Department and try to build them up only when there is a fire?

You schooled me right? What about the French? They were as much to blame for the genocide as Belgium. I get that you don't have the most basic of understanding of how the UN works so Ill let you go on believing what you want, thankfully there are people who live in the real world... Did Russia, China, England and France want to act? If they did want to act, which western nation was willing to deploy troops to Rwanda? Canada didn't want anything to do with Rwanda. Third world countries were offering to take part in the mission but they had no equipment little training and questionable human rights records which most likely would have increased the problem. We can lay the blame at the feet of the Americans, but I can safely say that the whole world failed Rwanda not just one nation but once again you can continue with your misguided assumptions.

And you think that from now until the end of time there will never, ever be a threat to Canada? Never requiring the use of military force to protect our independence?

Well in that case lets disarm...

You aren't that important to require outrage. My question was aimed to show your two-faced arguments, as both those discussions are in the "the court of public opinion" as none of us are capable of passing judgement that is legally binding. I can say that this guy is guilty of rape and murder and it is the exact same thing as you claiming the PM and conservatives are guilty of something. If one of those is covered under innocent until proven guilty then so is the other one, you seem incapable of even the most basic of distinctions and even when you are arguing both sides of the argument you seem too thick to even comprehend that, you have no logic, and you have no ability to understand the simplest of all arguments.

This is in "the court of public opinion" so what were you saying again? Because I don't remember being part of the "formal judicial system court of law". Unless you are suggesting that Derek L is part of the "formal judicial system court of law" and not part of the "the court of public opinion".

He seems to ignore everything written and just replies to what he thinks was said as opposed to what was said.

Answer the questions? If you cannot answer those questions then those missions are useless. Just because they are needed does not mean that the UN can provide useful support. And again its not the US only, there are 5 members of the SC who can shoot down any idea, and usually it is either Russia, or China... but I guess that does not fit in with anti-American party line now does it?

Oh man, I forgot you can't read and you prefer hear what you want rather then what is said...

Again WHY hasn't it happened to Iceland? I mean we could always ask the US to provide army airforce and navy units to protect Canada as well... Saves money right? Thats the thing you seem to ignore.

When they were done killing each other the UN stepped in to do what? Maintain peace? Sure helped the tens of thousands who died and the millions who were displaced... Where was the UN in 94? Sure a combat mission would help them...but the combat mission should come in the form of police forces to combat gangs rather then soldiers playing police officer. And peacekeeping missions sometimes require force, something the UN has proven unable to provide in times of need. You mean like in Rwanda? If a war should break out again in a location with a peacekeeping mission, the PK are more then useless, as most of them come from third world countries that use then as a source of income. We need to separate politics and the military, if the DND asks for something, then they should provide valid reasons for the project in question rather then asking for one thing, it becomes political objective and even if they get it, it is almost unrecognizable. If you want efficiency, then cut the many useless positions and replace them with efficient once, remove politics from the military and let the military decide which bases to close, and what to keep open, and then we can cut inefficiency and save money. Foolish spending how? A Very Large chunk of the budget goes to salary of the members, and support for them in one way or another and the rest goes to maintain aging equipment and infrastructure.