myata

What do you mean by legally ... not recognised...? Legally in which legal system? International law does not allow settlement of occupied land. It that's the land of the Arab state, they're within their right, as much as we may not like it. And Israel has no jurisfiction over these lands. So, however settlers have gotten there, it's 1) illegail; 2) interferes with the ongoing conflict; and 3) makes them accomplices in their states policies with all the consequences.

OK, illegally expropriated and settled for generations if that's OK with you? Not really the same as your regular patch of soil north of Toronto? Like those Palestinians, settlers willingly decided be be a tool for their government's actions in this conflict and I just don't see the difference between the two. Not that I sympathise or condone either act.

One example is not plural for ... , you know it. Most of West bank settlements (all?) are built on illegally expropriated land. And then, what's the meaning of "buy"? If the land is illegally occupied, international law does not allow "buying" and settling it, so it's really all bs.

Your attemps to bring up this card over and again are really pathetic. At issue is not the ethnicity of certain individuals but the fact that they decided, of their own will, to live on the territory forcefully appropriated from other people and which is an arena of a military conflict. Therefore they fit any reasonable definition of a human shield. The same would apply to any country or ethnical group that would promote this policy.

Or, to bend it a bit further, carry a gun on the land ... you just grabbed from its owners. Right? BTW you call it twist, I'd just say, apply same standard. I guess it's a matter of terminology.

This one time, I agree.

And their parents taking government grants to settle on the occupied land, and wearing guns on patrols in their settlements also are only passive targets? I have to qulify that this applies to settlers on the occupied land, not residents of Israel proper. They are every single bit the same willing human shields as those Palestinian women.

Well, yes, there were any number of "analysts" floating around this democratization strategy so one wonders what their sources of inspiration were, so the motivation part sounds quite plausible. It's an absolute non-starter as a legal argument though.

Thanks for accepting all my arguments. As for the last question, you should really work on your reading skills. The answers were proveded (hint: begin with "not up to you and me ..." and have something like "elections under gunpoint"). Seriously, it was already explained to you by other users that token elections in unstable and insecure condition aren't reflective of the will of population and cannot be equaled to real democracy. They are simply an excuse the Bushes need to have at least some, however flumsy and incredible, justification to its absolutely unwarranted actions.

I gather you'll agree then that the attacks on Israeli civilian settlers would be also fully justified by the same token? They really nothing more than willing human shields whom their country encouraged and sponsored to settle on the occupied land to establish and extend their claim to it.

These serious (and even scary) reports from todays BBC: Depletion of ocean resources; Record increase in greehouse emissions; seem to line up with a number of other trends (over population, loss of productive land) to point to a serious environmental crisis in the middle of this century. It's scary to think that the party may not last forever and some of those catastrophic movies may come true even in our lifetimes.

Here, KrustyKidd, is the roundup of our discussion: Who has the authority to set up democracy outside their borders? - "Nobody" Who has invited US in to liberate Iraq and set up their government? - ditto (no evidence of such invitation was provided) Was it possible for people of Iraq to liberate themselves, at the right time and conditions? - Yes (no counter argument was given to the example of a number of nations which achieved liberation without outside interference in the recent years) Hence, US had no legitimate claim to, nor the authority, to liberate Iraq or anybody else for that matter. Whatever they did was because of their own misguided considerations and the mess that resulted is their responsibility and their alone. The time is ripe for the Bushes to pay for their little misadventure, in political terms at least, if criminal isn't yet possible (as it should be though). This is not to say that the people of Iraq cannot have a democracy. They will have whatever they decide to have and it may take much time and many more lives to figure out. If there were to be some credit to the coalition for their part in the final liberation, so be it, they'll get their thanks in the future. But they still have to bear full responsibility for the mess they created here and now.

That was, of course, in the alternative Universe and history. Here, in this one, they kept on pressing bs like "45 minute threat" and those ever elusive WMD. They wouldn't approach within a ballistic missile shot of UNSC with anything even remotely resembling "regime change".

Following a number of reports from US administration that recently proved wrong (WMD, Al-Kaeda in Iraq, 90% enriched uranium in Iran), I just don't know what to make of it. Is there some truth behind them, or is it another questionnable intelligence or some kind of a diversion ploy?

From what I can recall of the times before the invasion, the Bushes corp was hard set on invasion several months before it began and I doubt that anything short of Saddam's offering immediate and unconditional resignation would have stopped them.

You, big lovers of democracy still aren't getting it, or just being "deliberately obtuse"? It's not up to me, nor up to you, to tell what kind of government Iraq should have. Then, - bs; - Checkhoslovakia; Hungary; Poland; Estonia; Lithuania; and many more; - there can't be a link for something that never existed; - see above + perhaps you wanted (but forgot) to qualify that by "holding elections" you mean "holding elections in the country occupied by foreign troops and under their puppet government"? - see my earlier posts; - try working on spelling "Mesopotamia". - probably factually incorrect and definitely irrelevant; - see my earlier post;

So, let's go ahead and "liberate" them even if it's against their will? (Note that the topic started with an episode in the UK, not Afganistan. If you believe that someone is oppressed without recourse in countries such as UK or Canada, you should provide some evidence).

OK, no I'm not going to reply to your BS (it's not worth the time) but here's some brief factual statements for your future reference: - UNSC never "authorized" anyone to remove "evil dictator" in Iraq. You can go spend megabytes playing word twisters but it just isn't worth my time. - Any number of nations were successful in removing their own evil dictators without outside interference. That proves that self liberation is in fact possible. - There was never any request from legitimate Iraqi national government or representative, to the US, to invade and liberate them (note that no relevant links were provided). - The above proves that no one has authorized or asked the US to create democracy in Iraq; that it was solely their (US administrations) decision, in which people of Iraq played no part whatsoever; and that your pathetic attempt to stick them in to justify the invasion is, in fact, as incredible and pathetic as it looks. - Now that US created these volatile and unstable conditions, I do not know what would be the best path to follow. Nor, I imagine, do any number of highly learned pundits. So there's nothing wrong with being honest. Now answering you trickster question, I would US to stay away from Iraq (i.e. leave them alone) and save Iraqis the trouble of being helped in establishing their own government. There, it can't be made any clearer, can it? - Finally, because, as per above, the US took it entirely upon themselves to invade a country and control it, the time is ticking for them and not for the Iraqi people whose nation existed long before the US and will probably last long thereafter. Nearly four years of destruction, anarchy, death, corruption as a direct result of someone's mindless action is more than enough to pass the judgement. Whatever happens in the future has little to do with that.

As the Iraq fiasko clearly shows, these grandiousous schemes may only exist in the alternative reality. The americans will eventually realize that, down X trillion $$ and several thousnad lives of their compatriots.

And again, the result cannot (and should not) be held reflective of the lack of opportunity. You should know: every male has the opportunity to pursue a certain female. But only few will succeed.

Er, volunteers? Anyone?

Sorry, I don't have forever to go over who said what. The question was very clear: who has the authority to set up "democracies" outside their own borders. Good that you recognize that - for the record. That an interesting interpretation, even as twisted interpretations go. Perhaps you can elaborate (or provide one of the famous links) where exactly did the UNSC authorised the US "to remove" that "evil dictator"? Interesting - Iraqi people themselves. What then US administration was doing there in the first 8-12 months after invasion - picking daisies? And no doubt, its the Iraqi people themselves who appointed the provisional government that run the elections? Then, the real question is, if it's the Iraqi themselves, how did the US troops ended up there in the first place? There was any number of "people" in the recent years who got rid of their governments without outside interference (e.g. most of Eastern Europe), they did not require full scale foreign invasion to achieve that. And even if we believed you for a second, there must have been something from the "Iraqi people" to invite the liverators in. Is there a link for that? I've no comments there. US started the mess, now it's out of our hands whatever way it goes. God themselves may not know where it all end up. By invading, Bushes robbed Iraqi people of the opportunity to sort the things out themselves, on their own terms and within their own timeline. It is clear that expectation of instant and glorious setting of democracy was a great delusion. That is the only thing that needs to be proven. Whether it eventually turns out to follow democratic path, or fall under religious authoritarianism, or even split in sevaral parts is very much out of US hands and is left for the history to sort out. The Bushes must be held responsible for the results of their mindless policy.

Right. There's also any number of articles, rallies and religious cermons with, for, and by muslims against terrorism and violence, as a simple search of Web and media archives can confirm. But you're looking for something more, if I understand correctly? Some uttermost absolute mainstream condemntation. Just trying to understand what it looks like. An example would help.

Ha-ha, I'm really impressed! You make a bling comment about someone, but are oh so deeply offended when the same is tentatively asked of you? How cute - and pathetic. Just like the rest of your argument (one muslim = all Muslims and so one). Nothing there.

What about when US napalmed villages in Vietnam? Families executed by the troops? Did we see that famous condemnation, by the "mainstream" community? Has anyone, ever seen it? Can you give us, perhaps, some examples to illustrate what you mean?