KrustyKidd

True, some are idiots but have you ever noticed that there seem to be more idiots on the Left than the Right? Given the intelligence of most of them I would imagine that this would be biased perception rather then reality as there are thousands of world class geniuses on earth now and throughout history just as there on the Right. Given the perception that each holds of the other's views I would say that there certainly is a lot of closed mindedness going on within the more enlightened of our society as they view each other often as sub-intelligent. . I think you hit on one of the key values of the Left here. Emotional. See it work in their speeches, websites, appeals, and even here .... in their posts. Often they replace a valid argument with ranting and hatred of something or track off into it from a valid one - like Bush for example. If it were not Bush, it would have been somebody else, even Kerry, but see how they paint Bush as almost sub human, a coward, a nut, a slack jaw, a Dr Evil, Gordon Geko the Wall St villan ..... but there is always the emotional hatred when making an argument of the right being wrong. When bringing up victims, they are always innocent, even when they are racist and warlike themselves they are simply victims of some bigger evil - like the US or, prefferably Bush. Emotional pictures are great too, deformed babies and weeping women because they assume that nobody but they knows that war kills and DU is bad. Like the Pro Life groups painting Pro Choice as Pro Murder they use shock pictures because they think people have no idea of what an abortion is. Emotional value. Notice the Right does not use picutres of celebrating Iraqis in posters, news clips and such, also missing from their websites are torture victims with arms being cut off, genitals burned by blow torches etc. All of it was videotaped by the former Regime so there is lots of footage to go around yet none appears. The Left would use it if it fell in line with their argument. Notice that schools being built, markets thrieving are not mentioned or portrayed in the press even though 99.9% of Iraq is at peace and well on the way to success as a country and people are getting on with their lives without fear of being killed or worse. They don't care about people more though, they only use the 'poor victims' as a tool to make their point or futher their cause. Llike Lennin who said he was there to save the masses, he actually despised them but, the 'useful idiots' seved their purpose as they became the 'indntured fulcrum' for his political lever. The moment he took power, this impovershed exile became more bourgeois than Marie Antoinette. They use something like the Iraq action as a vehicle to make their point, saying the US should leave now etc. while ignoring the repercussions of leaving thirty million people to a certain civil war with five or ten factions carrying out reprisals against civiliians in the heart of a country with an unspeakable amount of leftover munitions. Who cares how many hundrreds of thousands or even milions die in purges as warlords terrorize, at least the US gets burned to make their argument. This is not to say that they are wrong by any means. I think that before you can have change you must first have ideals, theory and emotional reason. They supply this. A simple parallel would be the world of industry. An engineer is practical as he designs a brindge for example. Same old same old as he figures it has to have square corners to evenly distribute weight or whatever. Along comes the artist who makes the simple design somethig that has a truely human touch and between them invent one that has curved edges that are both pleasing to the eye imagination as well as structuarally more enhanced as the weight is now more evenly displaced. In short, the bridge is stronger because of the artist's touch. That is why the Left is essential in my mind, the Right is practical but the Left suppies the humanity. What so many forget is that all of us are both and sometimes the values are intertwined in the individual.

Cool. I am probably right but have many left beliefs that are statisticlly left. Among them Israel being wrong on the wall, homo marriage, Indian treaties being honored and free speech without reservation within limits of hate and patriotism. I call things the way they are and believe it or not, voted Green in our federal election in June. As a 'brainwashed Bushie' as some on this forum have called me, I would say open your frickin' minds. I personally think he is scum but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, a thinking person should be corect some of the time, so my beliefs cannot be all wrong. If there is something wrong with my reaoning then it should be extremely easy to prove it wrong. Do it so that I can keep myself in the correct field. If my argument (s) seem idiotic to you then say it, however, be careful not to call me an idiot for I may possibly be vastly superior to you in one way or many and so, you would probably be lying. Socialit/Democrat I do. My good friend Hugo (whom I disagree with almost as much as I agree with) can explain it much better as he has studied the works of Marx in detail and specializes in Socialism. None of it has suceeded. In it's gestational forms it has proportionaltely killed more people than any alternative war and inhibits human progress. Democrat, sure, but conservatives share virtually the same views save more responsibility on the individual. Which brings us back to Socialism. The greater is madeup of many smaller. Strong small, strong big. Guess it all comes down to the bar level in which we separate help and unjustified welfare. Eleven? Doubt it, you have an argument in every post, not one has been a rant. A compliement for sure as you have never resorted to rhetoric and belive it or not, your arguments are origional. Refreshing.

Ten.

Let's see, I said "Ceasar rants and usually has no proof" From this thread alone; Oh good rebuttal. Yes, let's saddle up. Get real. Are we talking about the legality of the action in Iraq or what? You are all over the frickin' map here. Bush propaganda? Is that your reasoning for any who disagree with you? War crimes? First you have to have somebody call it a crime, then prove it. What the hell are you going on about here? Although the US has exempted themselves from charges and prosecution that does not mean that they cannot be charged. Are you trying ot say that the UN is saving themselves a dime because they know it cannot stick or simply rambling? Denial, brainwashed. Wow, you are a regular debating machine. You must have forgotten your 'lots of proof' at work as there seemed to be a lack of it in this post No, you have to have proof to change my mind. You rant too much. Oh good one! Hang ten Ceasar! That was in vougue in 2003 prior to the invasion, now it's just .... ranting. Oh yes! Comming to an end with Kerry who voted for the action and recently admitted he would do it again knowing what we all do now. Moveon is your guide. Another direct hit! Yes, closed mind because they don't agree with you. If I said you were right I would be a regular Einstien right? Well, out of twenty two posts I see nine that wouldn't make it to the letters page on the Coffee Cup times. Of the remainder, yes, there were some with rationale. fifty-fifty. Some with proof and some with rationale and more ranting. Some were realistic and had valid points but were lost in the rhetoric and Bush/America/Israel hate flowing through the common theme. In all, you rant.

This is the slur? I came out and said that Ceasar rants and usually has no proof and that the rest of those who are Left usually have good proof. Get your shit togehter before you come aboard me. Are you not a resident Leftist? When did you become Right Wing? Do you usually have good proof? Guess not as you didn't see yourself in this comment. Now that is a slur. In my post I explained that Israel was fighting for survival period and that many of those resolutions threatened that, even though in a civilized world they make legal sense. Much like a restraining order when dealing with a phsyco ex. Of course, you ride right over that and come up with this, which has nothing to do with what I said. I think I addressed that, and actually agreed with you, I also explained the reason why they do what they do, for reasons of practicality. . Leftist slurs. You haven't seen me slur yet, I, unlike many, do not insult without reason. If you are an idiot I will tell you that you are wrong and why, if you are on a side I don't agree with and make sense, I don't resort to rhetoric, I will actually agree with you as I did here. If you rant, I tell you but one thing I will never do is slander anybody because I disagree with them. I actually think those from the Left are highly intelligent and have a valid outlook on world politics and such. I listen to their reasons and they usually make sense and often are well within the ballpark of rationality. However, to me, mine make more sense until proven wrong. I am openminded, you know openminded right? The ability to take in new information and corilate it without predjudice becasue it may change a belief you have held for years? Some things do make sense and I take a Leftist stand on those issues and get whipped by the right on those. . If you are simple enough to think that Left and Right are like black and white you have a whole world waiting to be discovered. It is black and white with swaths of each within the other. Why thank you. You didn't address the parts that didn't so I can surmise one of two things, this is bullshit you post and indefensable or else it is slander. Which is it, slander or petty bullshit because usually we are on differing sides of issues and you don't stop and think, instead going into rhetoric mode?

Get real. Clinton's woes were titilationg and that's about it. All in all, I think he was a damm good president, better than Bush to tell the truth. I liked him as he had class and was a real charmer, not like his wooden headed buddy Gore. He got the shaft on that impeachment thing as he never should have lied but then again, nobody should have asked the question. Bush on the other hand has movies made about him, books and worldwide demonstrations portraying him as Hitler and killing thusands so that he can get a few extra bucks in the bank. Moore's movie portrays him as incompetent, not a womanizer, a probable coward who rides around on his rich dads money while he sends your kids to war not weak on defence. No, I would say that Bush has taken a lot, as an example look at the ranting of Ceasar on this forum. Look at the books written by the physciatrist saying he is nuts, the stories going back to when he was twelve and shooting frogs in Texas, all used by the Left to show he is a degenerate phycopath and a posible serial killer. I doubt Clinton was ever labelled that.

F911 Facts Unbacked up contentions of F911 and inaccuracies

Appear? Hmmm, when they are proven lies then it would certainly be time to correct it. Right now it is 'he said she said' and there is no lie for anybody to deal with here. Kerry can do all he wants to stop these ads just as he has tried to stop the book. Close ties? Close only counts in horseshoes and handgenades. They are affiliated or they are not hence the statement is meaningless. One of the big big stars at the DPC in Boston was Moore, you know, the guy who stretched truth and distorted through liberal editing and timeline falicy his point that Bush is an idiot. He is not in Kery's pocket anymore than these Swift Boat guys are in Bush's. Kerry is trying to censor the ads which have not been proved false. I imagine when this whole thing dies down he can get a case together and trie his luck. Heck, he'll have Edwards to help him as they may have a lot of time on their hands. Right now though, Bush has said that he thinks Kerry is a hero and doesn't think the ads are appropriate even though he has suffered attacks for the past three and a half years that no president should ever have to suffer through. How many times have I read here people like yourself calling him evil, stupid, lying, greedy, doing God's work, finishing Daddys job and on and on? In all, what Kerry is going through here is nothing to what Bush has put up with during a very difficult time over the past few years. Maybe he should run on his senate record instead of a four month stint in Nam. If it's illegal, get a judge and shut them down. Just like the Republicans ... wait a minute, they didn't do it. They just watched Michael Moore make a propaganda piece that fabricated a whole anti Bush feeling on out of sync editing and misleading rationale.

Ceasar is high on rhetoric and low on provability. With any luck, one of our resident Leftists wil jump in with some meat as I am sure it exists. Notwithstanding, the overall justification of the US will be that Israels are fighting for survival in an area of the world that will show them no mercy while the Palestinians are fighting for a place to live. Take away the survival rationale by making peace and the two sides can come together. On the UN front, a resolution is vetoed for reasons that may not be fair legally but repercussions are extremely unrealistic. The death of millions of people in order to settle the off kilter legal semantics of the Left. As i have stated before, this injustice can only be rectified when the ISraelis have somebody they can deal with that is not trying to kill them. Until then, they will keep all the power, cards and continue to ignore resolution after resolution. And who can blame them?

The Bush crowd? You mean over two hunderd and fifty vets all on record? The former VP who says Bush betrayed his country? I remember the Kerry crowd using Hollywood as a platform to smear Bush, books by a phyciatrist painting Bush as crazy, a movie using out of sync editing with contrived reasoning portraying him as anything but good, a billionaire supporting a group putting out ads portraying him as Hitler, a high level Democrat on a bi partisan committee holding back relevent intelligence which endangered troops lives so that he could have dirt on Bush. The Bush crowd, right. Seems they have started to fight back against the campaign of misinformation from the left.

Kind of like what Kerry did the second he got back from Nam eight months before his tour ended for his 'horendous and dehabilitating'wounds. I don't have to have served in Viet Nam to tell you that none of them were life threatening or rendered him incapable of continuing his tour. We all know that don't we? What I can say is that whatever his record there was, it has shit to do with what is going on now. If he wants to keep on bringing it up, then it will continue to be challenged. Funny, Bush's record in that era is relevent to the left, it is what it is. He was a lacky. Now Kerry is said to be less than honorable himself. If his actions in Viet Nam don't prove that, his trip to Paris to meet with the North VC do. There, he told them about how US soldiers (your precious Vets BTW) were acting in barbarous ways and allowing them to use that for PR. Prisoners such as John McCain suffered because of Jane Fonda tripe like he passed out in his 'support' of 'the vets.' Then after the war, this guy that now says he will be strong and decisive in matters of intelligence and defence tries to slash every weapon system that may save 'vets' lives and cut the US intelligence service by over sity billion dollars. He is better off keeping his mouth shut about .... well, everything. Oh, speaking about F911, the liberal left in the US tried to ban that Swift Boat book. Cute. Who is for censorship here? The US Democrats are for sure. Now if Kerry isn't running on the present with his military and intelligence cuts, he must be running on his past as a swift bopat commander (for all of 4 months.) Here is a little laugh from the Boston Convention : KERRY DRINKING GAME

Not absurd, go to the organizations website, look up the board of directors or chairpersons. Then look up the organization they represent or come from, you repeat that process and in the tree is a socialist organization most of the time. It's hilarious, they all hate America anyways as it is the opposite of everything they believe in. You know, success, democracy, lack of government control and social programs for those who can do it for themselves, this is just a regular bandwagon for these guys. Success in Iraq is just as bad for them as it is for former Regime members. Now I'm not going to tell you they are Communist fronts, I will however make the observation that Socialists all start off with great aspirations but it quite often ends up bad. Funny how all these impovershed political activists in old Europe turned out to be more bourgeois than Marie Antoinette when they held office. What power does to some people. Before power, they loved intellectuals and hated the rich. After power, they still hated the rich and killed them, killed the intelectuals and then killed their accomlices who used to be the poor. of course, these guys want to do it right this time, first they have to get some crdibility but that shouldn't be too hard as everybody knows, Socialism works great on paper. First, you need to discredit everything that works fairly well like capitalism and especially America, then you just need total control like Pol Pot to get the programe to work right.

To you maybe, then you probably pick up a newspaper once in awhile. You assume that people who work for near minimum wage are all into current events when more than likely they are simply doing a job and going home at the end of the day. Ever watch Leno or Letterman where they ask questions to people on the street like "Which country is to the north of the USA?" and the answers range from "Russia" to "I dunno." These same people don't even know who Kerry is much less that he is running for office and you figure they use flash cards to recognize famous personalities? Speaking of which, you can bet that Snoop Doggie Dog would be recognized well before Kennedy in this case.

Clear as mud brother!!!! Your observatrion on F911 is correct I believe. A tripe piece guarranteed to play to an audience of Bush haters for profit. And why they never attacked back was to appear to have the high ground but now they are all the same, much like the policies. the one fact that I love is that voters are galvanized this election. More people making more informed decisions, that's democracy.

Get real. Go to a Canadian airport and I'd be willing top bet that most security people there don't know who Giles Ducceppe is much less what he looks like. See, most people are not into politics like we are. Especially just hired airport security people, half of whom are hired by filling gender and racial quotas. Tell me, you think the average Pakestani immigrant employed at Pearson knows who Mike Harris is? Bet they don't know what Stephan Harper looks like either.

Kerry files FEC complaint against swift boat group Now why would the Bush people welcome this? Yes, moveon.org saying he is Hitler etc. I remember that one. F 911, MM, George Sorros and all. He said, she said ....... The Group ..... UNFIT FOR COMMAND CENSORSHIP Did the Republican party go to court to stop F 911? If Kerry has a problem with 250 of his fellows, shouldn't he take it to them instead of Bush?

I think the problem here is that it is too stingent for your liking. If I remember right, most people immediately after 911 were worried as well and, highly critical of the airline industry for allowing just anybody to get on a plane. Now it's too much. Too little, too much and soon to come ...... just right. When you hire X number of people to provide extra security and don't want travel expenses to go through the roof, things like this are bound to happen. If they hirred only Mensa members as security staff you would have a civil rights case on your hands and air travel would be so high the industry would collapse.

Finally you admit that it was legal. That is all I was trying to say.

Charges pending? Cut me some slack, it's not 'sneaking' when you form a couple of hundred thousand people in the form of a coalition over the period of four months in front of the world. Are you telling me that the UN never had an opportunity to actualy say "member states assisting the Government of Kuwait must not take action until blah blah blah"? It's opinion of unofficial people, not nations or for that matter the United Nations. If it were, there would be about fifty some odd heads of state served with warrents or sitting in dockets at the Haugue at this moment. It seems that inaction is the lot of the UN, both for the good and the bad in this case. providing this case is as you say it is. Or did they endorse it by inaction?

You are right, it was not a war in the normal sense, the Coalition had no need or moral obligation to declare war as they werre (and still are) working within the seemingly broad outlines of the UN resolutions. Now go back to where this is relevent, 1990 when the UN passes resolution 687 which authorizes member states to use whatever means necessary to uphold resolution 669 and all subsequent resolutions. My debating adversary Eureka observes that the UN says some things that are not consistent with action and I observe that never once do they say anything that precludes or negates the authority for member states to use it. On the contrary, they continually underscore that authority while they chasticize Iraq and order her to comply. Unless you are going to get Nader in, things are going to stay the same. Kerry reiterated the other day that he, even with the knowlege that he has now, still would have voted for the war so by regime change, I take it you mean for the whole of the USA to change in an unrealistic manner overnight? I would be interested to hear your ideas..

Show me how what they did was illegal, you know, against the law. even if a doctor speeds on the way to an accident scene, he is still commiting a crime. If he get's there and it was only a crank call, mens rea takes effect and he is off the hook. The crime or illegality has been commited though, it is his justifyable state of mind that gets him off. Next example, a teen gets into his car and drives down to the strip, obeying every law of the road. He has every intention of breaking every law in the book once he gets there and starts racing. Once there, he sits in his car with nobody to race. Mens rea, the intent to commit a crime yet no crime has been commited? Get real. As i said, in order for mens rea to come into play, there must be a crime. Thank you. In the absence of somebody bringing something new, I will observe that there are three positions here. Legal, illegal and neither. Scince neither of us has convinced the other, it may be neither. With the absence of charges and fifty some odd wolrd leaders in irons at the Haugue, I will say that at worst, the world agrees, or is at least, so unsure of it that it cannot make a legally binding call. Therefore, this was not an illegal warnor can it rightfully be called such until it can be proven otherwise.

I don't have to deal with that question here as it is not part of the legal argument, rather it is a 'what if?'. I would be happy to get into it on another thread though, or this one when this dies out. Thanks for reminding me about the other nations though, it was something I wanted to bring up to clarify and focus the actual issue without bringing in how many vetos the US has done, how much the reconstruction contracts bring in ans so forth. Stick to the legality or illegality argument itself. The question is, if this action was illegal, prove that Poland, Spain and Italy commited a crime. There, that should get rhetoric out of the way and focus us on the legal argument.

Only way to change my mind is to actually have some to counter mine. Please supply something other than your 'it is clear' opinion.

How a Defendant's Mental State Affects His or Her Responsibility for a Crime First you have to have a crime or an illegal act. Then mens rea comes into play. Well then, it seems that they have forgotten to give instructions to the member states assisitng the government of Kuwait them as the whole document is instructions to Iraq and UNMOVIC. Oh wait a minute ..... they didn't. It says here in 1441 .... " Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area," It seems the only instructions 'member states assisting the government of Kuwait' get is authorization to do whatever it takes which in case you hadn't noticed, they did. Iraq is now in compliance with the terms of the ceasefire - yea!. This belongs on an Israel thread or a morality one or something, definitely not on this one as we are talking about legalities of the action in Iraq here, not Israels score card and how the US helps them. Maybe if you read a legal document before you start firing off 'it is clear' and 'guite evident' and 'well documented' and all the 100% for sure things you allude to instead of grasping at any non related straw you can, you will find you would flounder a lot less. My position is that this was legal. Not right, but legal. I offer the only proof that makes it legal, law. You offer nothing but opinion and attempts to sidetrack this into a moral discussion because you can't change what is written in UN documents, hence, you don't quote any to prove your baseless points. Do you know how to use a quote function? You find your proof and show it. You have showed nothing. In order for there to be criminal intent, there must first be a crime. Let's add a few things up; You think there is a large UN force in the Gulf right now under UN command. You think even though the UN has written one up in the form of resolution 686 that there was never a cease fire after Iraq was removed from Kuwait.i You think that the Gulf War ended and a peace treaty was signed between Kuwait and Iraq yet cannot give the terms, signatories or date this occured. You think mens rea is an indication of a crime even when none has been committed when all it does is take the mind set of the criminal into account to determine if they knew what they were doing was illegal or for sentencing purposes, determine criminal intent. You read between the lines of UN resolutions inserting your own meanings as you go while discounting what is actually written. You think UN resolutions have an automatic expiry date or a sundown clause that is automatily applied making them redundant. You think that a UN resolution is thrown out once another comes along. Would this mean that Iraq no longer has to repay Kuwait for the damages they incurred? I mean, 1441 makes no mention of reparations. You think that a document written by three of 15 UNSC members carries more weight than an actual UN resolution. In short, you have a long way to go to touch down with reality, use the weekend to bone up. Got to go Eureka, my debating friend. Have a good weekend! Drew

No, they are exempt becasue they did nothng ilegal. If you read a few of the resolutions you will see that. In Rev Blair's fantasy world they have mock courts and all bring him up on charges but no UN body has done so. Get off the idiot pot and recognize it for what it is, a legal action that you don't like and can't accept because it doesn't fit in with your bias. And the opinion of the UN Security council. I imagine France, Germany and all would bring charges up if there were a basis for them. Are you calling them or acusing them of being in league with America? What is stopping them? Maybe legality?