KrustyKidd

So you propose waiting for Hamas,Hezbollah, and Al Queda leaders to visit one of the countries that has this 'law' in place as a peaceful way to settle things? What good would this do to secure countries from the likes of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong who never venture out of state?

I'm no lawyer, just explaining why the US is not on trial for illeagaly invading Iraq. When and if the UNSC meets and sombody tables the matter then it can be decided. Until then, it is not ileagal and can be considered legal unless of course, you are Michael Moore or somebody who wishes it to be without proof. As for vetoeing that condemnation, the US was condemed for their invasion of Panama but Iraq, no. As for the personal view of the west using the council to push through their policies try looking at it from another point of view where the second, thrid and fourth world uses it to pick the pockets of the first.

It wasn't a mandate for direct action however, it laid out the terms of the ceasfire and terms with which Iraq had to comply with in order to be in co0mplience. Then it gave the member states the authority to use whatever mean necesary to ensure Iraq complied with those terms. Since then, inspections and whater regimes were set in place, none of which Iraq complied with. 1441 was Iraq's last opportunity to comply. Gave them the authority to use whatever means necessary to ensure that Iraq complied with the resolutions Might have but the main players remained the same. Take it like this. The UNSC is the only body able to make this action illegal and they have not even tabled it. The US has been condemned for many actions by this body including the invasion of Panama but not the invasion of Iraq. As I said before, it is not illegal and more than likely legal. Hans Blix gave his final brifing to the UNSC just prior to the invasion and, he said that Iraqi cooperation was not forthcomming. A condition necessary to comply with 1441. Any member of the council can table it. None have.

No. I buy twenty dollar CDs in order to listen to ONE song that I think I might like because, I would feel so guilty listening to it for free on the radio. Those poor artists and, paticularily those poor marketers and producers. Living in carboard boxes and producing works of art just to scrape by.

There sure were. The UN used the term 'member states assisting the government of Kuwait' in order to identify those nations that held a physical threat over Saddam in order to get him to comply. The coalition of the willing as you know is also composed of UN member states and thus, can join in legally with the origional member states as they may use whatever means necessary to get Saddam to comply with the ceasefire terms. There was officially something like 45 but in reality there were over ninety which includes natins that did not for obvious reasons wish to be formally included. Those would be places like Iran, France, Israel, China, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc who have a lot to lose but provided assistance and, behind closed door support in intelligence, material or whatever. What legal questions might there be considering the invasion was certainly not illegal and, more than likely totally legal?

I highly doubt that the Palestinian government would be able to make those million dollar payouts to the families of slain Israelis so wonder where the balance is in expecting Israelis to pay them.

They can only if they are one of the 'nations assisitng the government of Kuwait' as mentioned in the origional resolution. As for lack of mandate, here is the logic. As for reasons for not doing the 100% thing it is as Riverwind said 'ego' and ...... hedgemony of the region. There are three countries that sought that - Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Saddam played the world and would certinly have succeed in having the sanctions against him lifted sooner or later to resume his military buildup again. One does not have to actually attack another nation to impose their will, just pressure them from time to time economicly, militaritly or culturally. One hallmark of an Islamic country that seeks to be the leading power is hatred of Israel and the ability to harm it somehow, a sense of history (as being a desendant of Saladine) and, not kowtowing to infidels. Unless you fill all three of those criteria, you're just another truck stop. How not to be an Islamic and Arab poserhouse is to be treated like a sheep by the US and the UN. It was a calculated risk and Saddam certainly, in my opinion, would have won had 911 not occured. Given the extremes with which he put on the big show in the midst of his country beingdivided and militarily constrained by No Fly Zones etc, and, his willingness to use his people via starving babies etc in order to garner sympathy to have sanctions lifted, he was on a single track voyage to resume his old ways.

It held the key to the War on Terror insomuch as to do what, in a perfect world should have been done (oust the Saudi Regime for appeasing Conservative Wahabbism and allowing Jihadist groups to flourish and replace them with either a democracy or a dictator of the US's liking) was exactly what Al Queda wanted to occur, as that would have galvanized the Muslim world against the west in one swoop making their dream of a region wide movement a reality. Hence the hienious attack on 911 that was designed for maximum response rather than harm. This is discussed with links here. More

Overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein. Clinton made that US policy. Look it up at your leisure. Then, take into account the post 911 world with Saddam in violation of every condition of the ceasefire from the Gulf War and the US under pressure to lift sanctions. See, I understand why Clinton could not act and, I also see why Bush had to act. One only needs to pull their head out of the box that partisan politics pulls idiots into. Do you actually think Clinton would have invaded Afganistan and outsted the Taliban by proxie and then called it Miller time on the War on Terror?

Clarke is a credible source. Clinton was a good president and, probably would have done a better job prosecuting the war on terror. That said, he would more than likely have done the same a Bush and, more than likely would have invaded Iraq as well seeing as how he was the one to have ousting Saddam a mission approved by congress. Only after 911 did the criteria with which to do that change from non violent to vilent means change. Notice how Clinton resonded to the towers attack by throwing cruises at Afganistan, a point with which the right says was weak kneed. Imagine if he had a real reason like Bush had for actually devoting a good part of America's arsenal towards that country. I'm sure you would have seen a similar response then. If Bush had not have had 911 occur and simply attacked Afganistan, it would have been the similar situation.

So true and simple. Now, as another poster said, deal with it and instead of using the money given to them to kill - build, educate and industrialize instead. They would find a willing participant and investor in the Israeli nation.

jdobbin From the article; So, you didn't provide an opinion to complete your post so I take it that you are either unaware of the problem Jihadism poses to the west (and east), you think we should send more troops to stop them or, simply allow them to take over again. Which is it please? Peace with Saddam not under sanctions. His idea of peace is understandably localized.

I would suggest that it is an elected government and not socially engineered by the west. If not to your satisfaction then next time they hold elections. Hamas is a good example of a goverment not to our liking being elected so still they were elected. Our troops are 'propping' up this regime in coincidence only. What they are doing is preventing the opressive Taliban from comming in and destroying the democratic system which the US and us have nurtured whether it begats a continual pro western government or evolves into something anti western. Well the hell with it then. Let's just turn everything over to them and, to save time and effort for them let's fund them too. Heck, while we have our capitalistic industrial system, let's produce white robes and stoning pillars continually until they come for us. I take it you have a stone or mud hut picked out where you live that you wish to move to right? Just wondering, what are you planning on telling the 65% of the people who voted? That it was all just a joke and that democracy is not reality?

Invading Saudi Arabia without doubt, would have galvanized the entire Islamic world under radical Islam. Removing US troops from SA removed one of radical Islam's contentions and invading Iraq alowed them to place US troops in a position where they could place pressure on the Royal family to take action on their Jihadist infestation. And also took care of the nagging problem of Saddam Hussein. Logic dictates that when a terrorist entity is in danger of becomming irrelevent they will react. In the case of terrorists, they can only react one way - with terrorism. Hence, it is no surprise that terrorism has gone up and really has no reflection on whether we are winning or losing So your solution would have been to wait for another attack much like 911? Negotiate with Osama? Prop up dictators like Sadam rather than take him out (which incidently is one of the Jihadists main issues with America) or, the moronic idea of invading Saudi Arabia.

I think that he is simply trying to present a unified country in order to show Taliban fighters that we won't falter no matter how much they terrorize. Layton on the other hand, instead of prsenting arguments in Parliament says crap like the following in public; Saying it once or twice is ok but to continually harangue about this in public would give any insurgent or enemy momentum for their belief of beating us over the short or long term. Do you think that we ahould all present a front that is divided with one showing we fight for Afganistan and the other saying that we should get out because we are taking casulaties? Or, do you think that our politicians should simply make a statement as to their postiion then debate it in parliement with voters able to make their choices come election day?

Ya sure they are. Read the article, the guy was not recognized by the security staff and for good reason hence, he was treated just like you would be if you claimed to be the Queen of England when protesting the security at Winipeg International. Bet you couldn't pick him out of a line up either unless of course, you know him and what he looks like. Further to the above LOL. Only AFTER did he explain he was diplomat. Was he arrested? No. And do you still think the US planned this? That somehow, they planted a thought into this moron's head to not bother to follow proceedure and then be surprised when he has a problem?

Of course they do. They have diplomatic immunity from legal prosecution and their diplomatic pouches are from my understanding immune from being searched.

I think you misinterpreted the article which BTW, was written in plain English. He "is not being detained now" but the story states plainly that he was detained and offered his seat on the plane which he refused. Tin foil hat time. Who else had had problems going through airport security due to some dire dark right wing conspiracy? Rush Limbaugh JK Rowling Retired Gen. Joe Foss Margaret Jackson, chairman of the Australia based airline Quantas There are hundreds, if not thousands of incidents such as these and none have any dire or dark conspiracy behnd them. You don't actually interpret news like this all the time do you?

This is the society which will prevail

I never would as I believe you intended well and did find those articles good. Please don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with posting links, just give something to debate with. Rules are only guidelines and I just figured your posts that were in question didn't make sense so when you brought up the point of taking it to a moderator or finding a rule that said it was wrong I showed you the section that it would fall under as I certainly don't believe that you meant wrong or to be disruptinve therefore, a moderator is not required.My only point is please back up those articles with a viewpoint of somekind that others can grab onto and I actually look forward to it.

Look harder please. Your posts in question contain only a link and a sentence describing the link. The ones I have observed interupt an active discussion. If you place some opinion along with it or use it to refute or strengthen one of the points being discussed then it would not be in violation.

Yes, no surprise. Hanging around in the 'no blood for oil' crowd and chanting the Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam tried to off his dad won't get you far in the real world. Yes. I have access to the Stratfor site. If there is an article you wold like, let me know and I will send it to you privately. Unbiased opinion using intelligence agencies and contacts and, privy to just as much information and probably better culled and analyized than any other private source available. So, you have counter sources that have any credibility now that you basicly trashed any source you could ever muster by continuously raising the bar from "Any evidence Iraq was the factor? Any at all?" to requiring a video taped interview with some Saudi Prince saying they were scared the US was going to get them so they took on a popular movement within their borders for the first time. Yes, I can see why you didn't get that one out of your liberal opinion columns or for that matter, any publication as it would never happen. Why is that? Seems many think errently that the US has regime changing designs on Iran, Syria and so on and forth. Even some on this forum think that Iran should have the right to have nukes to stop the US from taking such action. Maybe if I searched, I could find those or similar words comming from a post or two of yours. Half have a favouable view. A small minority indeed! As for five percent thinking OBL should rule, it's moot as his intention is not to rule but to create conditions for the Caliphate. Al Qaeda is Jihadist military arm of Conservative Wahabbism which desires to restore the Caliphate. They are not politicians or administrators. They are warriors. Remember I said that there never would be a country composed of belt bombers. It is a means to rock the existing system in order to separate population from government and keep at it until a government of their liking can take over. Another brief article on why they are popular in SA. Islam tells you what to wear, which hand to wipe your ass with, what to say, when to say it, who to follow, who to lead and how to live life. It is more than a religion, it is an all encompassing guide to everything. The Caliphate is the society that these guys wish to recreate so is more than a religious and political movement. It is everything including social engineering. So, yes it is religion, yes it is political and yes it is social. They are a force that can change certain societies. Ours, they cannot as democracy is in place and people are unlikely to be swayed to their side. In Iraq, there is opportunity for all providing they get their way and an opportunity to use the freedom that Regime Change has provided. While there is a chance that Jihadists can overcome the odds there to become an actual popular force, it is slim as there are so many balls in play for the population to choose from. In areas where the Jihadist infrstation occurs, they are strangers from foreign lands and unlikely to have the power to usurp the local heads of goverment (clerics etc) As wsell, being a terrorist full time does not put food on the table so, they need the support of the locals in some way shape or form. That support will not be given except by permission from the local leaders. Now, ask yourself why the local leaders would give this support and set themselves up for replacement by young firebrand foregners. Only two logical answers; they either perscribe to the idea of the Caliphate which I find doubtfull as there would be a much stronger Jihadist movement in Iraq or, they are only using them to make waves for the national government in Baghdad to grant more concessions. In any case, they are not a very large threat in that country as, what seems to work against them is individual or societal opportunity. A reoccuring theme in the War on Terror idealology. Here is some wisdom for you. (Saudai Arabia) No. In countries where they have actual appeal you will note that there is only two choices - that of the regime in place or death. These choices are kept in the top two by torture and Stalinist police state tactics along with a public and oft repeated Islamic rhetoric of anti America and Israel.

You posted a news article and gave no opinion or personal view. How are we supposed to know what point you were making when all there is is a link to an article. As for being welcome to post articles without qualifying them, suppose I posted links to porn sites and rock videos. I suppose I would be as welcome as quoting the city section of the Calgary Herald too. IOWSs, explain what the hell the article has to do with anything or, provide your opinin to provide something to discuss.

Are you an actual RSS news feed or an automated update of some sort? Got a point or an argument of some kind that we can respond to, please post it, if just taking up band width then you're not welcome here.

Documentation? You mean some Saudi Prince comming out and saying "We are scared of the US so we had to crack down on Al Queda? Won't find it anywhere but in intelligence circles Black Dog. And, if one of the top intelligence agencies is not good enough for you then I take it Ehsan Ahrari (PhD, Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.) is not either. Regime change, al-Qaeda style The civil war point is crap as is most of your dodges in your losing arguments. The article states; Hardly a confirmation of anything particularily since most articles from any publication save biased lefties say it is possible, imminent, likely, unlikely or as Koffee Annan said the other day 'possible.' Your theory of why Saudi Arabia, after decades of appeasing Radical Jihadists suddenly took action. Support for al-Qaeda Pakistan Al Queda and the rest of the Jihadists are religious and seek a religious movement so yes, it is relevent and should not be disreguarded. You really are funny Black Dog. Excellent. Now, Why would they rally? Who are they and where did they come from and what are their goals? Strange, Sunnis voted in droves. Seems they fight when they don't get what they want politically and, support Jihadists or, as you call them - Islamists when they need to ratchet up pressure. Not sure what leadership you refer to. The natioanl government of Iraq or local regional Sunni leaders. Yes! Now you got it! That is why they will not take over from the Sunni regioal leaders once they have filled their purpose of helping create pressure on the Iraqi government to conceede to Sunni demands. No. You are confusing national Sunni political leadership with local. The national government has no hold or sway with the Jihadists however, the Jihadists cannot operate without the support of the Sunni people in whatever region they operate out of. And, that support would not be given unless the local Sunni leadership gives the thumbs up. And, the local leadership will not give thumbs up if they feel their rule or influence threatened by outsiders. Hence, the Jihadists are being used by the local Sunni leadership and they themselves are not in control.