KrustyKidd

Interesting how you fit the Liberal mould so well. If not allowed to insult you have little to argue with. And this is how it seems. No, 1441 did not need to authorize force as that authorization was already in place as it so clearly noted Thank you for agreeing with me. Good argument. It was not, 1441 was directed to Iraq. It gave them one final opportunity to adhere to all previous resolutions and refers to the standing authorization to member states to allow Iraq to KNOW they can and will still be subject to military action if they do not adhere to the requirements. No wonder you have to resort to insulting, you have no idea of what is going on. In any case, let’s move onto the little side games here. : Statement in Explanation of Vote by Sergei Lavrov, Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN, on the Security Council's Resolution on Iraq Oh well. Guess they should have gotten it on paper, or, used better lawyers.. Yes, I really can see how you are floundering. Wonder what your next insult will be. My legal experts? Ahhh, let’s see, the division of lawyers for every head of state in the coalition. The lawyers for every statesman who researched the resolutions and advised their heads of states. Well, let’s see. You have brought forth such esteemed people as Rabinder Singh and Allison Macdonald On the other hand, we have a battalion of US lawyers such as John Norton Moore More Real Legal guys, unlike part timers like yours Also, you might add to this list Lord Goldsmith, John Ashcroft, John Danforth and every lawyer that advises ever head of state in the coalition. See any heads of state in jail? Either do I save you know who. Guess that means that the advisors did a pretty good job and your duds did squat. How’s that for proof there insult boy? And you my name calling friend, you have two people who fight Visa violations. Well, I assumed you were talking legalities, not morality here. After all, you are trying to prove a legal case, not what is right and wrong. If you want to go into that then I will say that Iraq was run by a man who was bad and it is a good thing he is now gone. The US has saved lives, over two hundred fifty thousand of them and Saddam is no longer a threat to the region. Elections have just been held with better turnout than most western societies enjoy despite the threat of death to voter and poll workers. So, are you trying to discuss a point of right and wrong or if it was illegal? So, Iraq is better off, hence the moral argument is with me and there are no Presidents, Kings, Queens and Prime Ministers in jail except you know who again. So, your legal argument seemingly has not stuck too well on the international law scene. Dumass indeed. Yes, please hurry, I can hardly wait to be called a dumass again by a guy with shit except emotion to argue with.

Oh, now I get it. The UN just throws stuff in even though it means nothing. To fill space or for entertainment. Gotcha. And then, it allows people like you and others to fill in their own meanings when they wish to change things after the fact. Rosey world you got there Black Dog. I don't see that in the resolution. Is this a side story of some kind? If it is, then it is not UN law or part of the resolution. Same as Koffi Annan comming out of his office two years later saying that he thinks it's illegal. Whoops, sorry Koffi, you aint a voting member of the Security Council and neither is your employee Blix. No. I think murder is against the law. Hence, it is illegal under any circumstances. See, you are trying to use a society where laws are laid down to provide an analogy to international law where it changes from one day to the next with resolutions. I have shown you where the US can take action using certain terms within those resolutions and you come back with interpretations and opinions. Yet nothing precludes the action and so, there is no way to say that it was illegal. I am very sure that in retrospect there are many who wish they had inserted this or taken out that so that it would be more clear, but alas. There is enough leeway to provide a legality to the action. No matter what law offices or officials from wherever say about it. Hard to live with but the only people who can make it illegal are the ones who pass the resolutions, and they didn't spell it out right. And I am sure the US would have vetoed it anyhow so, people such as you and Eureka are stuck with the moral arguments. Tis what it tis. As I said before, loopholes, you bet. But since it isn't illegal, then by default it has to be legal. So, to say that it is a morally ambiguous invasion is ok but to say that it was illegal is not correct as it is not.

687 Lots of stuff was mentioned and changed but Para 2 of 678 was not. And it is used in 1441 as well, Along with a further prod of: Strongly implies uh? Kinda like a 'little pregnant.' This is international law at the hisgest level, not whackamole. It either says or it does not. Wrong. 1441 was the UNSC giving Iraq one last chance to live up to the conditions of the ceasefire. They did not. They did. It is a fact that everybody knew, like the law of gravity hence the US and Britain did not push for the second resolution as they already had this authorization. If they had of done so, they would endanger their tenuous postition of legality. Anyhow, still waiting for the UN to pass a resolution saying that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. There must be one if all you people are runing around saying it is. I would like to see it very much as it supports your position. In it's absence, I guess we have to go back to a default postition of it being legal.

No. His was actually more valid than your misinterpretation of the resolutions, hence I addressed it as yours was nothing. However, I'll respond if you wish. Here is what para two actually says. Not as you so errently have it in this piece So now, did Iraq fully implement 'the above-mentioned resolutions' and 'all subsequent relevant resolutions' avove mentioned resolutions? In effect, did Iraq make ecological settlements, did they release all Kuwaiti POWs, did they make full restitution with Kuwait, did they cease all WMD production and destroy all material, facilities, research and efforts to procure same and allow unfettered verification, did stability come to the region, did they implement human rights in their country? If the answer to any of those is NO, then the member states can 'use all necessary means' as Iraq was not adhering to the conditions of the ceasefire. The use of the term co-operating is not to designate the command structure but rather to identify who it is they are talking about. Namely those nations that are co-operating with the Government of Kuwait - the US led coalition. This incidently is the first I have heard of this really weird argument and frankly, wonder if the author of the article you quoted uses English as their first language. As Iraq actually left Kuwait in 91 it would seem that this term (Memeber States etc) would become redundent yet it appears in ever subsequent resolution pertaining to Iraq and it's continual violations. Reason: as above, to identify and show that the member states still have the authority to enfoce the cnditions of the ceasefire, not to say they must be subservient to the will of Kuwait . Who wrote this anyways? I don't rember there being a UN force in the Gulf War. Hence, the author must be ferrering to the Member States in para 2 of res 678. If, like all previous resolutions reffers to para two of 678. That is the authorization. If it does not wish the Member States to have that power then I would imagine that the UN has the ink and paper to put that rescinding para in. However, it's not there. have you got it hidden someplace? Hmmm, selectve ommissions happening here Black Dog. Here in the 1441 it spells it out yet again And, thanks for bringing this piece up as it gives me yet another opportunity to show the board that yes, even though no WMDs were found in Iraq, the whole world knew that Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire agreement and hence, justifiably targeted for regime change and invasion.

Yes indeed. Good proof. So I can show it legal but you cannot come up with any solid proof that it is illegal except to cite opinion. OK, fair enough. Say you THINK that it is illegal then. HOwever, saying that it is then, you must have a recognised court above the UNSC that has determined that it is. Who is this court? Now, a counter question. How does it feel to be one of the many in the world who believe something only because you want it so when in fact, it is otherwise?

Where is your proof for that? Here is mine you've failed to disprove the legality of it before, and, offer nothing but opinion. Opinion of Kofi Annan, who does not make laws but rather fills paper clip dispensers and makes sure order is maintained while others make laws. you quote hans Blix who looks for weapons but does not make laws. Yet you have never shown how an instruction from the UNSC can be rescinded (para 2 res 678) without a vote. You add nothing to your arguments by flailing about with rhetorical lies such as that.

Well that seems to cement my case that Israel does not pose a problem to the Middle East other than their private conflict with Palestinians. Yes there is a lot of propaganda, read this next quote ..... I sure wish somebody could provide some facts for this.

OK, just a lot of propaganda. Thank you so very much Black Dog for finally being candid and agreeing that Israel poses no physical threat to actual peace in the Middle East. So then, the only problem they have is with their Palestinian problem. Too bad the rest of the world wasn't as open minded as you but, as we know, most Arabs run around saying that Israel threatens them. Case closed.

I think that a Morrocan Israeli would laugh at you Black Dog. Unless you are very dark or olive skinned they really look no more like your average white person or balck person, Chinese person than you do. Matter of fact, when I was over there I couldn't tell the difference except for tell tale signs like wrting, language and behavior. Now, if you would be a good boy, and read the history of that comment. It was in response to Lonius who stated that he did not side with either because they, to him, were both the same. I gave reasons why if that was the case, he should side with the people that he held more comon values with. So, if you like to sacrifice your children in Jihad, produce no goods for market trade, rejoice when westerners die, call for the destruction of your neighbor rather than compromise, live under a dictatorship, and have the opinion that your children for generations will live in poverty or see thier enemy destroyed and no inbetween then by all means, back Palestinians as a default mode. Oh yes, and have a really close working relationship with all sorts of terrorist organizations that are commited to destroying not only the US, but Canada, France and lots of others. Well, if there is something the Israel must do to make peace with the entire Arab world that directly affects the entire Arab world minus Palestians, I have never heard of it therefore to melyou wouldn't be rehashing a thing. Please show me the horrible thing that Israel has directly done to the Muslims of the world and that affects them so deeply to this day that they cannot recognize the she even exists. Ahh, the truth. Black Dog, I thought you had lost it. Syria Jordan Egypt all occupy parts of historical Palestinian land. So why are they not attacked and hated? You brought it forth into the discussion here. BD How does Israel create conflict with anybody other than Palestinians which is essentially a sort of civil war between them and them only? If you cannot answer that then, in your book, Arabs are either mindless bigots, grudge holding hillbillies or simply hate mongerers. Where is this valid reason? We all have problems with the foreign policies and actions of various countries, yet deal with them, and still maintain trade and cultural relations as well. The Arabs deal with the US, they deal with France, they also deal with China and Russia and all of those countries that have repressed some group on the planet at some time. Yet Israel is singled out. Explain what Israel does to them directly please. I won't raise my concern to this level, but unless you can show in any sense that Israel is oppressing the entire Middle East and why Israel is justifiably "the primary source of conflict in the region today" I would begin to lean that way and wonder if it was because you were a mindless Liberal following the historical liberal trend or that you simply hated Jews period. Because as far as I can see, the only people who have any rightful grudge or issue here is the Palestinians, and even that is arguable if one takes into account much of the entire history. Like why don't the Arabs make the Kurds their pet oppressed people to rally around? What the hell, why don't you? What we are taliking about here is not that particular issue but the direct threat, transgression or whatever you want to call it against the entire Arab people of the Middle East by Israel. Show it to us please or just scale this Palestinian issue down to what it really is, a civil war and nothng else.

No, I would pick the one that we trade with, that produces goods, that does not use suicide bombers to make a point, that does not keep their people in a state of perpetual misery in order to stay in power and the one that holds elections and allows free anti government protests instead of lynching mobs for suspected spies. I do believe that being anti leadership in Gaza is treading a dangerous line for your life and that of your families. Nice try but really, there is no comparrison from our perspective. Like I really dig the French too. But if it came down to a choice to either back Osam Bin Laden and Chirac, guess who? Now if I remember right, there wasn't much rejoicing in Tel Aviv on 911 was there? And if they were not looking out for their own interests they wouldn't deserve to be in power as a government would they. For some reason you continue to think that a governments responsibility is to first, take care ot the rest of the world rather than their own people. revelations from you saying the US is only looking after their own people and all make it out to be a sin of some kind. Of course they do, and of course they try to be benevolent to the rest of the world. However, in a tie, I'll take a few anit US demonstrations over a team up with Al Queda or Hamas anyday. as would any sane person.

Well Lonius, so very glad that you opened this up like this. Tough to pick a side when they are both as bad Easy, if it's a coin toss for morality, go for self interests. To me, my kin, my company, my country, my civilization and even my race be I black, white, yellow or brown to have a crew like Hamas in charge of the land on which Israel now sits is a big down side slide. Israel is more western than the Palestinians, more of a trading partner, more supportive of the US (and the west's wich we are part of) interests in the region. At least far more than the Palestinians ever would be once they team up with all the other right wing and repressive governments in the region which we all know they would. So, therefore, by default, unless you are a nut, you have to side with Israel in a tie.

I think the nature of the settlement was dictated in the hypothetical question which was the lead up top my point. That being the both sides being happy with the settlement in whatever form it took place. The speculation is of use simply to show you that if this took place, only the problem between the Palestinians and the Israelis would dissappear. BD (if and when a peace agreement is made)So therefore, you admit that those who hate Israel would continue to do so simply because they exist, reguardless of the Palestinian issue. Hence, Israel must have done something to them, or threaten them in some way shape or form. What is that Black Dog? How does Israel threaten the Arabs of the Middle East who are not Palestinians? So between blaming the Tsami on Israeli nuclear testing, the Palestinian issue (which Arab countries do less to solve and help than Israel does) how is Israel threatening anybody? What you and the Arabs seem to be on about is the equivilent of Canada making continual war on South Africa for stealing white farmers land. It makes sense to some and it does not make sense to others, but our foreign policy would be dictated by the percieved unfafirness to a majority race issue. Now, other than the border despute with five million Palestinians, how does Israel threaten the other 295 million people of the Middle East?

Sorry if that was worded wrong, it is the same question we got mixed up a few posts ago. Herre, we will try it like this; If the Palestinians made peace with Israel to both parties mutual satisfaction, how would this affect the physical political greography of the Middle East? I mean, they made peace with five million Arabs that live within a stones throw of them. How does this bring increased security and a better life to the other 295 Million Arabs in the region? Those 295 million are the ones who at this moment blame their hard luck on Israel, who only have a problem with the Palestinians. Kind of like the world blaming famine, war, disease and all on Canada because we have not settled our land claims with the Aborigionals.

Well said Ceasar. This is nothing new, nor is it abnormal. To be able to condition this out of the human psyce would be an acheivement indeed. Is there a pudgy middle aged man anywhere that does not wish he had the body of Adonis? Or a frumpy housewife who wished she were like Aphrodite? We all do. And some give up on that dream while others persue it. And others take advantage of it.

This is old hat and we are all new at it. Ancient Greece reveled in the aggressinveness of men, who all competed to be the strongest, most athletic and fiercest warrior. With this honor they would be able to attract the most virile and beautiful woman. the women on the other hand tried to be the most voluptious, warmest, fertile thing that they could be in order to attract the fiercest and strongest male they could. And you are going to change all this in 2005? Best of luck!

IP address. Shows up to the admin beside the name. If you are cool then he wont do a compare check. Also, can ban the IP itself if he wants.

Black Dog being extremely selective in his guoting. So selective that he is able to change the question I proposed. He then goes onto show us how Lucifer (AKA Israel) is responsible for the palestinians etc etc ad nausium. The real question was a bit more challenging however; Hmmm. Black Dog, you avoided the question, as the Left always does. By region, I don't mean the isolated conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis but how the whole region is living in fear of the Israelis. Show me what Israel has done to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, iran and on and on. We all know that the Israelis and Palestinians have their problem. Now, if you could, take that problem in your imagination and solve it somehow. Then, show me how Israel would be a threat to any nation.

Yes, and their subjegated people had better like it too as they have no choice. They get to have free press there just like here as long as it supports the view of the ruling regime right? The Muslims have so much say in their day to day lives. How in the world do you know what these repressed and silenced people realy want? Because a ruthless (pick one) mullah, dictator, terrorist leader, terrorist leader's thugs, chanting mob told you? As for Israel, other than the Palestinians, whom Syria, Jordan, Egypt and others seem more intent on depriving of a home than Israel does, which countries do they treaten in the ME? Somebody provide some evidence that Israel is directly responsible for the turmoil that occurs there throughout the region. Comon, show me how other than the Palestinian terrorist who killed Jewish women and children who ended up in a wheelchair, (and still preaches for others to do the same) Israel threatens Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria (heck, if I were Syria and seriously thought for a second that Israel would launch a WMD at me, I'd make some serious peace immediately so I guess they really don't feel all that threatened.)

No but you must be living with your head up your ass if you think the whole world is going to go bankrupt just to satifsfy some left wing fantasy about teaching the US a lesson. Yes, and they could move their factories that we depend on jobs for to Mexico. We could also short sell the US dollars too, as could OPEC begin trading in Euros. Yes, that would make lots of sense in yourl latte slurping, bycycle riding- ecological-save-the- world from the right idealogical idiocy that lives only in your fantasies. Let's see. The US dollar goes nosediving suddenly, small countries that depend on it for loans, jobs, aid and have substancial savings in USDs suddenly go tits up and default on loans to Canada, France and all the rest of the hate the US crowd, sending themm into a depression. OPEC, trying to unload the dollars they have create a run on the money and watch as their trillions lose market value overnight. The US unable to come up with enough equity to pay off all the dollars being turned in as the nosedive panic gains momentum start to unload all their Canadian dollars, Euros, Yen and call in all loans bankrupting small country after country in the process. In turn, as they default on payments to places like Canada and such we feel it severely as the market for our good is not there as nobody has money. Yes, let's get the US - only in your dreams insult girl. Just wondering, have you consoidered investing a substancial part of your portfolio in Chinese businesses? I mean say ..... 75% or more? LOL, bet you didn't, and, I'll bet nobody does for one simple reason - you can't depend on them or any third world country like you can depend on the west. So why would you think for one second that all of OPEC would hang their future on a communistic, repressive system that in all likelyhood couldn't make the payments or dig up the coin for increases in cost rather than stay with the US who, for the past hundred years have proven they are reliable business partners? Glad you don't look after my stuff. You must pick your investments with a mood ring for crying out loud.

Well of course they could but they won't, why? Easy. If they did, the US would find alternataive sources and pay those alternative sources more money. The Arabs would be short shifting themselves and before long, would start to try and sell to the US again to make more money. The USA though, would not buy from them as the supply would be unpredictable. OPEC is a business organisation, not a political left wing revenge club. They can and have done what you say but the repercussions hurt them more than the US.

Go look in your closet Ceasar. Tell me which article of clothing or tool whatever is made in an oil producing Middle Eastern country. Just one item out of the thousands you have in your home.is all I ask. (Don't try and give me a bottle of Israeli wine or we'll need to start another thread.) Now, wondering, if they produce nothing that we buy other than oil, how do they feed people? And what effect of shutting down production would it have on the peole there? No oil=no money=no buying power=nothing to buy or eat. Selling to the Euros is a grand idea, however, they all work on a capitalistic system same as we all do. Highest bidder gets the goods. To think that anybody is ggoing to starve people so they can make a political statement is idiocy and counter to everything you believe. Rethink your statement.

Insensitive? Of course I am sorry about the death of a child, a slow post day for you perhaps? My response was to the automatic idiocy of Maple Syrup who favors draconian measures without thinking of the consequences. His motion to fill dogs skulls full of lead as they attack with banned guns is as intelligent as banning all knives, leaving humanity to carve the sunday roast with a rubber mallet. As far as I know, dogs that atack people are put away after the event is investigated. Many breeds of dogs are being placed on an illegal list and the owners are charged when found negiligent.

Lonious, you kill me sometimes. And the childs Truck Driver father was stuck in the right hand lane someplace in a jam and the baby sitter couldn't get the knife lock off the utenseil drawer.

I wasn't kidding about the money issue. Hugo observed quality of life is directly related to income and jobs etc. To do the two things MS sugested (banning trucks to right lane and governors) first implies an extreme falshood. Trucks and their drivers are only to blame for 25% of the accidents between cars and trucks, the other 75% is the fault of the car and driver. Therefore, logic would dictate to make the adjustments where the fault lies - with that of the cars and drivers. For example, why not make people take a written test to determine if they can go on a road that supports big trucks? Simply being aware of the stopping distance required and blind spots would save a lot of lives. Second, being courteous. Trucks don't want to be in the left lane, bad for nerves, bad for socialability, and it is unsafe as lots of cars doing well over the legal speed limit are there and make for a bad mix. So why is it that when a truck must pass a much slower truck, the passing driver wishes to wait a moment until a couple of cars can pass him so he does not impede traffic, he puts his turn signal on and he has the right timing, right momentum to make that pass once those two cars are passed. Suddenly, from way back, the next car, who was a moment ago doing 60 now speeds up so that the truck cannot make his signaled lane change? This subsequent move of rudeness, forces the truck to then slow at the beggining of the hill and then pull out once the car has passed, subsequently passing the other truck at a much lower speed. Halfway up the hill, with a 20 MPH drop in speed from what he would have had if the car didn't make that idiotic selfish move, he would have been out of the way and back into the right lane. Instead, he has ten or so pissed off cars behind him. Now, to the money part. I get $100 if I have to go into any of the boroughs of New York CIty. Reason - it sucks. It's not a good place for a big truck. It is time consuming and it is a hassle and my milage for the day drops from 600 to three or four hundred. Most factories are inot in major cities. There is lots of freight to haul continent wide without ever having to go insside the beltway of any city. If any city makes a law where I have to lose income by going there, you can be sure I'm not going to go there. This right lane law will cost Vancouver dearly as extra incentives have to be paid to get people to deliver there. I know there is no way in hell I'm going to burn off a morning drivfng at thirty miles per hour vice the sixty I could be doing. An extra fifty bucks a truckload is what it will cost to the driver. Add ten or so for the shipper, another ten for the reciever, antoher ten for the guy who owns the trailer that is burning an extra day and you are into the hundrd dollar per truckload range. A truckload that used to cost 800 or so. Realy want to watch prices climb? They will. Somebody else mentioned train and why we dont use them more. Answer, JIT. It takes a train from BC a few days to get put together. Another ffew days to cross the country, abnother few days to get taken apart and another few days to get put onto trucks. If sent by truck, it would have been there, been worked on and more than likely, at the end customer being sold by the time the train freight arrived. A guy in a factory wating for a part has no warehouse these days. Its JIT. Just in time. Two weeks is not just in time, it' spells the loss of jobs and business to competitiors who dont operate like that. JIT is important, that's the reason why the Hudson's Bay Company ran this continent rather than the North West Company. Because they got the goods to market one year earlier because of their longer shipping season on the Bay rt=ather than the NWC St Lawrence port. Jobs will be lost, companies will pack up and move to the states, your quality of life will go down but, you still won't have to leave for work any earlier to beat the trucks in the left lane, because you won't be working.