KrustyKidd

Checked the word nonanalogous. Can’t find it. Clue me in on it please. Spelled wrong maybe? I understand what you mean, just like the word is all. Back to the argument, you keep going on with valid points about ‘humans.’ Before, people would go on with valid points about a man and woman. Don’t you see the change? Before it was man and woman, now it is person. Next it will be whatever. Go to PETA and tell them animals have no rights, they will think you are a nut. Talk to the scientists at any research lab in Redwood and tell them that AI cannot happen, same thing. Then tell them that marriage will only happen to people or beings with rights in this day and age and that is that and will be forever. They will look at you like you are from the sixteenth century. Tell me that human cloning will not happen and I'll laugh. Human.. So that is what marriage is? You are quick to exclude the possible. Does it discust you that something or somebody may hold differing beliefs than you and this will come forward in the future? Love is love, I figured that’s what marriage is, not benifits and such. I am not talking about Toronto and Canadian society. Rather the whole planet. Why do you think I am bringing up nonconsensual marriage in this argument? It is part of overall human society as is this ruling. Sooner or later they will all mix much as we think it will not. Yes, yes and yes. You set limits though saying now there must be consent, there must be people, there must be this and that. Before it was ‘there must be man and woman’ as it was for thousands of years. Now it has changed for the first time and you think it will stop changing. Your definition is Doesn’t sound like benefits to me. Sounds like relationships and love, fulfillment and so on with legal stuff taking the backseat. Stuff you think cannot happen to anybody but humans. Where did I give the impression I restricted this argument to North America? I have not and considering the world is shrinking at an ever increasing rate it is a falicy to think North America will be untouched by the rest of the world over the next two hundrred years as much as it is to think they by us. A melting pot. Legal definition yes. Like human rights in the States. You bus black kids by law in the hope that society changes. You pass laws making discrimination and quotas compulsory. Eventually it is accepted at a social level as this will be. Of course there is not. There is no such thing as AI and human society has not progressed to the point where animals have equal rights. Nobody has come forward to challenge the ‘marriage is a union between two people’ - YET. Maybe when some court in LA gives rights to a poodle to inherit money it will start, then move on from there. Possibly a scientist who is a #1 Geek will create the first AI computor and interact so well he considers it a lover. I should expect the first extraterrestrial/AI /animal /inanimate object that is given love by a human and ends up in court will be faced by the argument that ‘marriage is strictly between two persons’ right? Then watch the shit fly as every person backs up the rights of the whatevers. I think the key defence to a relationship will be the ‘union between two humans /persons whatever. Please don't get me wrong here. I am not making judgement against it as I actually agree with it for crying out loud. All I am saying is that this issue sets the foundation for far more changes than we, at this time believe. not next year, not the next decade probably but in the future. Our kids will (when some being or rights issue comes up) look at this law like we really knew what we were doing and use it as their base to make their laws. As it should be. It used to be man and woman with procreation in mind and now it is as you said 'persons' not with procreation in mind. What will it be when a machine petitions it is against their rights? A genie has been unstoped and no telling where it will go is all I am saying.

Can anybody tell me why Israel is putting up the wall on the Palestinian side of the border? I mean, as a right leaning person I can't figure out the pro in this. I have one theory and that is that they get it up and then by fact of the wall on Palestinian land, it forces the Palestinians to deal with them when they are in control and safe. As a land grab, most Israelis feel the settlers are out to lunch to begin with and have no love for them. Also, who the hell wants to own land with a buch of people on it wanting to kill you, in this case, less is more. Thanks.

First point, get some mainstream news for your quotes , otherwise I'll start giving you Limbaugh editorials to back mine up with. Both are crap and we know it. Second, it's true. Normally they are out to lunch but this time they report the truth as it is. Challabi is a rat and that is who the US, both Democrat and republican has used for their intelligence throughout these years. It has little to do with the Bush Administration other than it was their turn in power when he was spewing out his BS. Check to see what the Senate Intelligence Committee took in and diseminated from him to the Congress. A bipartisan group with the Vice Chair Rockerfeller (the rat) a Democrat agreeing with it. Now move on and you will see Bush worked with what he had. If voters think he was playing James Bond undercover in Iraq himself then he is screwed. If they know that he works with what he gets then he is not. In all, this is meaningless to an informed voter. To an uninformed voter, it is Bush's fault,to another uninformed, he will vote for him because Bush gets his cousin across the border and into a dishwashing job.

War crime? Hardly, it has to be illegal first and it is not. Do you think there are that many irresponsible lawyers advising heads of ste of onver fifty countries that would see their rulers put in the docket beside Milosivic at the Hague? They know this stuff inside and out far more than Moveon.org does. Remember, we were talking legality. You couldn't handle it so, instead turned to morality. Start a thread and we can do it. you know, don't mention legality and simply go on with morality, there, you might find me a bit surprising in my views. A secret for a teaser Ceasar as I do like you, the US did this underhanded, legal but they took advantage of a situation for sure.

Right on. Now find a UNSC resolution that authorizes any means necessary and kick some serious Jew butt. Watch out though, I doubt if the US will have a coalition ready to help as was their perogative in the Gulf War and Israel is wating for derranged idiots to attack. Better find some help and a legal basis as well. Now, just wondering, what has this to do with the legality of the US action in Iraq? As I stated before and you would know if you read any of the legal documents known as Security Council Resolutions. Iraq was required to do many things which they did not do. All with the member states authorization to take whatever means and action necessary to do them. Israel had no such mandate hanging over them so stop this bullshit and get to the legalities. For the sake of the argument, which is legality BTW, have you facts of law that you can back up to make your point? It seems that both you and Eureka are intent on going on about sideline issues that are moral arguments rather than legal ones. Now, if you want to start a human interest thread entitled "The US liked Israel more than Saddam" these points would be applicable. As they stand in this argument, until Israel is involved in a ceasefire after being attacked by a coalition centered around a superpower and finds itself in breach of those resolutions under threat of 'any means necessary' it means nothing. Nothing. Zip, squat, nadda, zilch. Zero.

“The final conclusions are that it is all about oil; American hegemony; and getting even on behalf of Daddy.” ‘On behalf of daddy.’ I saw that on some sandwhichboards. Rhetoric. I have over fifty UN resolutions to quote, and am only a third of the way through. You on the other hand only have the overworked flacid ‘it is clear’ without back up.. Seems you ran out of steam the second post. Ah yes. The guy that thinks there is a half million man UN army in the desert of Iraq at this moment gets this one backwards as well. Sorry chum, only works when something illegal has been done and the accused is about to get put away. He uses this as an excuse (I only wanted to scare him) or, the prosecution uses this to influence the judge to put him away for longer rather than give him a probabtion or whatever (he had every intention of killing that day). It has nothing to do with legalities on whether the act was legal or illegal. Try this one, guy goes out one day intent on killing innocent bystander with his bare hands. Can’t find one and on the way home, is wrongfully arrested by a cop for ‘thought crime.’ They get a warent and search his cardboard box apartment and find hate letters, physco writings and a list of victims and methods of murder for each. Nothing illegal happened but the cops and the prosecution say ‘Mens rea.’ Good one. Now, prove this was illegal and you might be able to use this argument somehow. As it stands, as usual, you have squat. No, I am ignoring the fact that you have not shown exactly where this is written. The UN was ‘seized of the matter’ the day they said ‘member states are authorized to take whatever action necessary to ensure Iraq complies' so you must have something else right? Resolution 678 Oh, BTW here is something else. Para 3 of the same res Guess some states didn't. Like Canada, they ignored para 3 of resolution 678 for reasons of their own. France had lucrative contracts and was owed a lot of money by Saddam as was Russia. Canada didn't and still does not have a military that can participate. Possibly their reason may even have contained some actual wishes for peace, who knows? In any case, ignoring their responsibilities and attempting to circumvent their UN responsibilities for whatever reasons, they came up with giveing themselves one last chance to avoid being called to do what they are already authorized to do Second guessing the past and UNSC they went back and requested another resolution if they were going to take part. They knew that they didn't want to, knew that members like France would veto so it was a shoe in to save face. And so, we end up with Cretien asking if what they meant is what they said and if 'da poof is in da poof.' When he didn't need squat and admitted so saying that if he gets a resolution authorizing force specifically, he will go. No demands for anything else. The UNSC says it and he will go even if nothing is there. {You don't have to reply to Canada has nothing to do with the argument but I thought I would throw it in as an interest point for future debate.) In this argument it is relevent though. While the wording is not legally binding in any way it does convey the intent that no future rulings are necessary for member states to act as they ask that ALL STATES help out member states. And they don't even say they need a ruling to do it! Imagine that. Resolution 687 set up the ceasefire, “1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire” If Iraq had a problem, they could go to the UN to voice their disagreement, whatever that has to do with this argument. If a cop gives a wrongful parking ticket to a criminal then arrests him for murder the crook is well withing his rights to file a complaint to have the ticket anulled. Maybe get a refund before he goes to the chair. It was put to the UN because some countries like Canada would not participate without a second resolution that specifically authorizes the use of force. In order to have more support than the 50 odd countries already signed onto the coalition to carry out this legal action, the US would need to have that resolution. It takes away nothing from the legality or illegality. I'll be upfront with you as you seem to be out of touch with the whole thing and say that France was going to veto this resolution for sure. The US had seven votes in their pocket out of 15 and needed 9 out of the 15 members. Once France let their intent be known it was useless to go on, even to try and paint France as .... well, French. If they had've gone forward and put forth the resolution and it had failed ...... well, you and I might be agreeing that this was illegal. Or at least my position might be seriously weakend by the fact that the security council did not say that it was ok to use force. My counter in that case would be that they did not say that it was not ok to use force which would be a severe discount from the already in place permission from para 2 of 678. You have a couple of things wrong here Lonius. Most of the world figured they had gotten rid of their huge stockpiles so that was only an issue for propaganda via Bush and Co. The legal issue is that they had to get rid of every program, piece of material, percursor agent, delivery vehicle as well as plans and programs to develop or aquire same, as well as give up on all of it. I think res 686 outlines that pretty in depth. The falicy in your post is in thinking that Blix (poor guy, he just wanted to verify and go home at the end of the day) was a detective. He was not. Iraq was to give full co-operation with UNSCOM meaning that they were to be showing them where stuff was and help.. help.. helping get rid of everything and fully document it like they were Santa's elves getting ready for Christmas. The second is that Blix’s job was not to find anything. He was supposed to be the leader of a group of people who were supposed to be getting active participation and co-operation from Iraq in this matter so that they could report to the UN on how things were going. As Iraq had agreed to this they should actually been getting reports from Iraqs like “Hans baby, Colonel Abib here, I have five shells with VX nerve agent, do you want to send somebody down here or should I bring them there? I can destroy them but I know you need to verify. ...Oh yes, we're still on for Saturday night right? The kids would love to see you again. ... Anyhow, Lt Mahmood just found a crate of Anthrax viles north of Basra at that storage dump you and I inspected yesterday, just brought in. Can I burn it or do you guys want to see it?“ No, there was none of that. Blix was not building a case for peace or war intentionally. He began, under pressure from the world to take on that responsibility though. He was a team leader to carry out disarmament verification and having an unco-operative partner in Iraq watched it sadly turn into a battle of 'catch as catch can' as he put it. Like Powell said using South Africa’s rapid disarmament as it fully co-operated with the UN “This isn’t fuc#ing rocket science.” After fourteen years and umpteen resolutions he gets the big report, on the eve of destruction. Is it an open door and a complete turnaround from Iraq? Blix: “Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. “ No wonder Powell was able to convince so many with his briefing, Iraq wasn’t taking this serious enough to make sure they co-operated in the way they were required to. I mean, a cop in a dim alley yells at you to drop the gun and you only have a pipe wrench in your hand so do nothing but hang onto it in a casual manner, you can expect for stuff to happen rather quickly. Welcome to the thread then. Me and Eureka are going on about legalities, not reasons the US might have had. Once we get over this, we can go onto that. Good argument for another thread. Here it means nothing. The Coalition could have legally invaded without WMD pretext using human rights reforms Iraq was required to implement with it’s own people in it’s place, none of which were even started. Or ,,,,, reparations to Kuwait, none of which were paid contrary to UN resolutions, or ...... environmental issues and repair to the oilfields none of which they addressed comming from their action against Kuwait, or ...... the return of Kuwaiti nationals and POWs many of whom to this day have not been returned or accounted for, or ..........

The crux of our debate is legal benefits? So why would it not be discriminatory for the law to not allow me to marry something I love and by virtue of returned affection, obviously loves me? Like my St Bernard? Because we can’t marry animals? Heck, a year ago two guys couldn’t marry, that rule was in place for thousands of years and it changed. Who is to say what bar will be broken next. You can though, albeit not through the government you can pay into plans set up for that. You are confining your thinking to Western society in the here and now. I am looking at the future. No, it fundamentally changes it to such a degree that the next change will be minor compared to this. We went over this, in many parts of the world it is not, throw that out the window. What if a guy came into court with a pet goat that he proves is ‘aware’ and therefore able to give consent. He proves his case by grilling the goat with math flash cards and the jury is amazed as the hoofed hottie correctly stamps out sum after correct sum. Then he gets the horned hoofer to give it’s consent, one stomp for yes, two for no. A dog in the paper the other day was reported to understand over two hundred words, I am not sure if any of them were ‘do you, Fido take Abner to be your lawfully wedded husband’ but it is quite possible. In any event, those Arab slavers in the Middle East certainly don't get the consent of their teenage brides. Neither do those dirty old polygamists in BC. On the other hand, people with mental illness frequently get married. I imagine that some cannot reason at any level of competency yet are granted the ability to marry. If this were simply about benefits it would not be called marriage. It would have been called something like a ‘legal union’ or whatever. This is about the actual relationship, not who gets a pension so don't give me that. I gave one with the goat and the dog, what about an inanimate object that while not owned by the Groom, is given away with a blessigng by the owner to the Groom? Does the court system determine who is and who is not in love? If an inanimate object has no rights, it would not have the right to voice it's non-consensual argument against the marriage. As a piece of property owned by an idividual, it's default position would legally be that of the owner who, in this ridiculous example gives his consent for the object to marry. Semantics Black Dog, a reasoning game. A silly argument but you can see that it does have the possibility of having a core argument if one or two things come to pass. Have you thought about AI? How about AI when a certqain chip is installed and non AI when it is removed? That would turn an individual into an inanimate object with the flick of a switch. One second it's your husband and the next it's a fridge. Girl gets in accident, is brain damaged severely and is in hopeless coma. Parents allow scientists to try out new computer chip to replace most functions of brain. She has no memory and her personality is that which the attending nurse programs into her through daily contact. The nurse falls in love, convinces patient she too is in love and proposes. Patient accepts as she has no other choice as prospects are slim. Parents are so happy that they give their consent for her to be married to nurse. Basically, she is a person as long as the chip is in place, take the thing out for recharging and she turns into a carrot. Dr Phibes, the Mad Scientist takes dead wife's combined writings of the culmination of fifty years of being a Mad Scientists Babe as well as photos, favorite music and programs it into giant computer which he has also programmed with AI. Machine looks like a giant file cabinet with an apron wrapped around it. It has the ability to mimic what it thinks his wife would have been like as well as think on it's own. They fall in love and after extensive petitioning to the Government eventually has a moving company roll it into church one day using a five ton truck and four dollies. Dr Phibes electrocutes himself trying to bring the dead to life and leaves his ‘Big Blue’ wife all alone. ‘It,’ now alone for the first time I it’s life puts an ad on the internet for a husband or wife and mistakenly puts it on a truck site. Next thing you know, CJ McCall falls in love, installs it into his Big Rig and they roll off into the sunset. Hey, that actually counters your point about the truck LOL. Or, it internets with another ‘Big Blue’ and they go to the government and request to be married. The second Machine does not have the capability of human speech so we have to take the word of the first that consent is there, providing consent is a matter I the future. And .... Another self aware computer does not have the power of mobility and through it’s unthinking, unreasoning probe, falls in love with a simple machine such as ......... A fire hydrant. Far fetched? For sure, almost as far fetched as gay marriage was considered fifty years ago. You keep throwing out valid arguments why marriage can only be between humans. However, is it written anywhere that it must be between humans? Just wondering. The consent part is not a global consideration as was the union of a man and woman and I think anyhow, that the human part is an asumption rather than law. In any case, I agree with it, just as Krusty Junior will agree with the fire hydrant hitching up with the manhole cover in a hundred years or so. I'm sure they will have valid reasons and a sound rationale whatever takes place.

Show me the resolution where the UN rules the action was illegal. Scince they did not, whether it was decision by non ruling or whatever, the default position is that it was legal. Sorry. I think OJ was guilty, so do you. He walked. Legal Determination - not guilty. "if necessary?" I don't recall seeing that in th1441. Show me where it says this. Matter of fact, show me anything that proves what you say here. Give us all the actual quote. Prove to me you are not making this up. Follow the resolution, not Bush's preamble for public support. Nowhere in any of the resolutions does it say that Iraq has to be a threat to anybody. The closest they come to sayng Iraq is a threat is in reference to how they wish for peace and stabilty to return to the region. In this argument, it matters not if Bush went there to get free beer, it was legal no matter what the underlying purpose was. I think it was far more than a pre-emptive attack but we can go into that in another thread. As it was a ceasefire that was breached by Iraq and had been for quite some time, it was justifiably in the legal sense, resumption of hostilities if you wish, or, simply carrying out the law of the UN as authorized. As I just finished saying, it mattered not the reason for the action, the legality was behind it even if the US and it's coalition had that as their core rationale. No, the final conclusin is that your argument is flawed because you are trying to get the resolution to fit your emotional call and left wing rhetoric. In a legal argument, It matters not what the reason for the action was or the result. The action itself is importent and this action was legal no matter what reason or excuse was used to get support from others for it. Iraq could be legally invaded by the Member States under the guise of enforcing the ceasefire resolutions.

No. My point is that scince it no longer is, it will change even more, possibly into something unrecognizable to us in the present. As the family unit is one of the basic units that make up the overall society, it too will eventually change because of this. That may seem fairly simple minded as it would change anyhow, however, this being the biggest fundemental change in millenia it will have more of an effect. It would seem so, makes sense to me. Once again I will reitterate my point; at present it certainly fills the needs of our time but it changes the fundemental underlying reason for marriage from procreation to simply being a loving, caring relationship. While in our society the two may be equal, now there is a division between the two. The door has been opened for further change. See, this is where my point is illustrated. Even you with your open mind and progressive attitudes are citing that there are hard and fast rules in this issue. Of course now we cannot marry inanimate objects. It's comon sense - now. Before, two guys or girls getting married was an out to lunch idea, why? Because the purpose of marriage was to procreate. Any fool knew that, it was common sense. Now that has changed. To tell me that it is not going to change further I know is not correct. You can say that an object cannot give it's consent is correct but scince we don't need to have the rationale of procreation to marry now, there isn't much standing in the way of say, being the legal owner or guardian of an object or animal and being in love with it. Who is the law to stop me from being happy and making life choices for my own object or ward?

Duh. We don't do anything meaningfiul. good or bad. When Cretien mispronounces the same word five times in the same sentence it goes unoticed and Bush has a sentence that makes perfect sense miscontrued even though the surrounding text makes the intent perfectly clear it might tell you a bit. We do nothing good or bad, no matter what our intent. Seriously, we may as well live in the Alps and make cukkoo clocks for a living for all the effect we have on the world. Fortress Canada, until the shit hits the fan. The facxt that we have a thread here and the whole non Canada portion of this forum is predominately about America should tell you a bit about why the US got hit and 'Whoville' didn't. When they want the Hobbits we will be here, ready for the taking.

I must have fallen into a warp into the bizzarro world or something. Black Dog, you seem to make sense more and more these days. I think that your views are the same overall but you seem to come to the same reality which I have held for a long time. Or possibly we are on the same path but taking different strides. Whatever. Anybody but Bush is the motto of anybody left of small C and Kerry is the 'anybody.' Now that they have thrown all their anti establishment backing behind him, they are finding out that he to represents mainstream America, people who are not our to lunch and have common sense n day to day affairs and such. Kerry on the other hand, is finding out that he has to court the majority who are not as easy to read. He does it with the same issues, war, peace, security, economy, purpose and of course ... pure carisma. I like Kerry myself, as I said last election, I'll take the loser here in Canada as PM anyday. I would have rather seen Lieberman or Gore in there against Rice but that means nothing. Hundreds if not thousands of people could fillthe shoes of President just as well.

Cartman and Maple, those were excellent points and posts. However, comparing the two cases is not absurd as they were highly publicized and easy to acess for reason of example. I imagine that I could, with a fair amount of research find a few individual stories of thieves who do something similar to Svend and see what reprimand they get and that would make a better example. I think Winonna Ryder would be a fair example wouldn't it?

Polygamy, I take it you meant a guy and ten women or was it a guy and ten guys? I could argue with some of the stuff you said above but to no real point as it is only details, you summed it up here. My point is that this has legally changed marriage and with it, socially to follow as it is accepted more and more in time to such a degree that we will see more changes than anyone today can anticipate. The poster who started this thread metioned beastility and was riduculed for it. Think about it, if they had internet a hundred years ago and he said the same about same sex marriage he would have goten the same reception. If you think that divorce is on egual footing with same sex marriage in the scope of social changes throughout history then I would have to laugh. The whole underlying purpose of marriage has been tinkered with. That is a major event and you think it is simply a 'it was bound to happen sooner or later' type of thing. Then some exclude the possibity of further changes saying such things as consent, must be a human etc. We just radically changed the family unit and now are saying that there are rules? That's my point.

Where, be specific, the whole document isn't any more than a page long. Can you narrow it down to a paragraph or two that 'specifally says 'member states assising the government of Kuwait are to suspend all aggression until we get the score cards?' Where is anything reguarding this remotely 'specific?' On the contrary, I provide quotes to back my points up, you say it is clear without being able to provide anything more than your opinion. Yes, and here is what your resolution said; Resolution 1441 8 November 2002 Seems pretty 'clear' to me and the high priced lawyers used by all the Coalition of the Willing partners. First, read the above quote where 1441 says that Member States have the authority once again and possibly you will understand why I know you are floundering in this argument. I hate to get off track here but this is similar to your idiocy of thinking the UN had a force in the Gulf all those years. Where does it say that the UN cannot walk and chew gum at the same time? Just show me something in an official document that says that. You keep spewing out all this crap saying 'it is clear' but don't back any of it up. Why? No time, no research capability or maybe it just doesn't exeist. Let's see, they give authority to Member States to use whatever means necessary to force Iraq to adhere to previous resolutions, then in every subsequent resolution reiterate that authority as well as pledge to remain seized. this one is no different, it gives authority and the pledge to remain seized, even though they know the US will probably go to war when they get the crap report on the seventh. It takes nothing away from the authority of the member states and does not issue a caution to them. Under those circumstances, they would have if that is what they meant, not leave them open for you to grasp at in search of meaning. To you probably, as you think there is a half million man UN army in the Gulf somewhere. The UN had no army and such was a law maker here strictly. The US and it's coalition had the legal authorization to enforce the previous and subsequent resolutions and the UN knew that. They also had no say over those forces and could neither tell them when, where or how to attack. Clear? They could make legal rulings and keep on forcing pressure on Iraq by way of resolutions and if you will note (I know you hate actually reading resolutions as you seem so .. out of touch with them) most of the resolutions are directed at Iraq, not the Member States. you would almost think that they are standing around making sure Iraq does it's part wouldn't you? Like they were seized of the matter while the Member States carried on with their legal mandate of doing whatever it took to get Iraq to adhere. And finally, you say the stupidest utterence I have gotten from you in this discussion here; I am hardly in the minority, the UN agrees with me as do the lawyers of every state that took part in this action. That's lawyers dedicated to making sure their head of state commits no war crime or illegality by taking part in this. I should think they are more up to date on what is going on than say, a pony tailed law proffesor at an Ohio University or a poster on a Canadian internet forum. As for the UN, was there any ruling made that stated this was illegal? Comon, you said I was a minority, prove to me the UN says that it is illegal. They knew when Iraq is doing something wrong, they make and make no bones about ruling on it, wouldn't you think they would have uttered an OFFICIAL peep if this was illegal? Instead, they have guys going on news shows giving OPINION and opinion only. If the UN thought this was illegal there would have been a world condemnation inside the security council chambers in the form of a ruling within a couple of days, there wasn't, nor has there been. Instead, we get officials giving news conferences and legal experts interpreting what they think using couched terms like 'possibly' and 'probably' and 'maybe' and so on ansd forth. It isn't illegal until a ruling is made by the only authority on the planet that can do so, and they ain't said squat. This leaves the majority of uniformed idiots who don't do their homework floundering as they cannot deal with the actual laws when making their flawed determination and instead give sweeping muddled statements like 'it is clear' and such with no actual laws to support their oposition. Of course, you are not one of those as you would unboubtably tell me that there is 'clear' evidence (wihich you have no time to post) that syas otherwise.

A slave or a vote was never the core of the family unit, a unit that made up the larger society evrywhere. That was a poor example Black Dog. . Not as simple as that. Something that has been thought unchangable for millenia has been changed. My point is that to think it will stop here, with what we think today is simple mindedness. The same people who say that we must progress think that it will end here with same sex marriage. The door (or barrier) that made the family unit strictly a man and a woman has been opened to allow gays. And with it, it has set a precident that changes the core unit from being a man and woman to an open set of possibilities. I never said this was bad. Rather I say that this has set in motion changes that we cannot even fathom, changes that will make sense I am sure at the time but may be lost on us in this day and age. Indeed. Good point. A man divorces a woman, yes. Now too, that has changed, now a man divorces a man or woman a woman. See, the changes have started already. It was mentioned in the ten commandments so it was written in stone. Albeit it goes on about coveting asses and wives and does not lay out the terms of a marriage we can surely agree that up until recent history they were talking about a man and a woman as legal or accepted homo relationships are not comonplace in biblical stories.

S'okay, now I understand, I was in the defensive mode so I am sure you can understand my demeanor. Interesting that you should bring up that argument as it is more than fitting that my point be used for a completely different argument. That being that the pornography issue with me was simply one of freedom. One man's devil is another's vice, and in that to a certain degree, to live with one another we have to allow the other's their freedoms. While one may wish for a non-smoking, non-pornographic world in which alcohol is prohibited, you have to understand that to some, they may be just as meaningful as your idiosycracies are to you. In this argument it is applicable on both sides. One side wants rights with good reason and the other wishes to restrict them in order to have their beliefs upheld. The first group maintains they should not be persecuted and denied rights because of circumstances not within their control and the others feel that tradition is more important than freedom and feel the world is taking them out one special interest group at a time. Others such as myself , am concerned that while this law is not alarming, it is errosion of tradition. While not alarming in itself as tradition can simply be the culmination of the same stupid move done more than once it is the change or a long accepted tradition world wide. Not the tradition of Canadian society but the whole human race. As we are an adaptable species it will have little effect on our survival however ....... However, it is what I believe is the first step in a change, not the only step as some here have contended. Before, this was that, now, this is not that, it has been proven that it can be changed. I should think that everybody, even homos should step back and see what has happened. Don't change it back by any means but look and see how one of the most fundemental issues of human kind has been changed here. Somethng that has been a given for over a hundred generations has been changed. The basic unit of our race, the family, or, our country one unit at a time can be demographicly changed. It is unbelieveable. And what is more unbelievable is that people are so caught up in human rights and anti gay sentiment so they do not see that this precedent can be used in conjunction with others in order to make even more changes. What will those changes be? I don't propose to know, I just know that there is a door, where before, there was a wall.

Then show me wherre it was 'suspended then. Thank you. None of this 'it is quite obvious' shtick, show the actual quote in the resolution. Proof please. Quotes, credible news sources whatever. Why should they? Like you are required to explain to the Mayor of Toronto why you chose a blue tie instead of a beige one every day. If they did nothing wrong legally, (and if you will note, the UN has not called them to task or even bring forth any resolution to oppose this action) why would they feel compelled to even say anything? You can only say the same thing to people who don't believe you so many times before you are simply wasting your time. Are any of those opinions of the calibre that somebody like say ... a king, President, Prime Minister might employ? Like 50 of them? Also, do any of them say for certainty? If you take a hard look, they all use guarded terms like 'most likely' 'probably' 'is thouht to be' 'in my opinion.' The last, 'in my opinion' is interesting as it gives simply 'an opinion.' For it to mean anything it would have to become an actual resolution condeming the action and such. Any in force that make this action illegal? Oh, BTW, you have Kerry and his Lawyer buddy running for the White house. I would imagine these guys are fairly up and up on the law both UN and otherwise. Do you think that Lurch and John would benifit from saying this action was illegal? Of course they would, could even say he was tricked into voting for it to exxoneratte himself. Does he? No. Reason: It wasn't. If he brings this up he would quickly get shot down and look like a bloody idiot for being wrong like some people I know. Out of date resolutions? With each new resolution they specificaly mention 678 to ensure idiots don't ever make the assumption that they are out of date. Give us a break and show me the expiration dates on resolutions. Are they like a jug of milk with a best before date or what? Well, it seems they agree with it enough not to have voted that the action would be illegal so that might be the first clue that it wasn't illegal. I would like to actually have you quote the paras and such that support your position that 678 was suspended. It will be humerous to see how you ignore the para in 1441 when it is actually said 678 is still in force so that everybody, every idiot on any internet forum can see that it is still in effect. So, while 1441 may have new things to say, it makes a point of letting the world know that most of the old stuff is still applicable and even says the terms again in black and white instead of simply reffering to them. You know, that handy phrase that's in bold quotes for all to see. Not arguable? I asked you for examples and you gave none. I might say that it means they are talking about getting free parking spots or whatever. Show me where it means anything more than how they will be watching the situation just in case nobody else is. If it meant what you say it does it would have been "Para 2 or res 678 has been suspended pending the outcome of this matter and Iraq's adherence to this resolution. No further action will be taken until this council moves on the matter. We remain seized." It didn't though. Instead, it leaves para 2 of res 678 specificaly mentioned as is still being in force and says nothing about 'nobody moves until we say so.' Even though they have no troops under their control. If you are familiar about legal proceedings, if the Judge gives a stay so that the defendent can get more counter evidence or whatever, he spells it out and counsels the prosecution to not take any further action until the specific date that the next action will take place. He doesn't say "I will remain seized of the matter. interpret it any way you want guys." And then doffs the black robe for his John Travolta platform shoes until it's time to go back to work. Here, try this. It was the US who formed a coalition. The UN authorized the use of force by this coalition. It was never a UN force. There were no troops with blue berets there. Clear? I thought we went over this and I asked you to tell me who the Security council had placed in charge, you didn't answer it. In any UN actin, the Commander is appointed by the UN. Was Shwartzkoff appointed by the Pentagon or by Boutros Boutros? Answer that one and it will tell you a lot. Also, you will note that the coalition to this day does not wear blue berets, that should tell you another. Sorry, it will tell you the same thing, that you are wrong. I'm still trying to figure out if you missing the non UN force part of this argument means you haven't a clue of what you are on about or maybe it's just a fluke mistake. In any case, I'll test you a bit. Tell me which specific terms of all the resolutions pertaining to the invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent ceasefire of the (cough) non - war that took place did Iraq adhere to? You adhere or you don't. Like you can't be a 'little bit pregnant' can you? Human rights reforms, return of Kuwaiti nationals (most dead in mass graves with a bullet in the back of their head, war reparations, cessation of all WMD programs and destruction of all material related to it, cessation of attempts to aquire same, destruction of all programs to aquire missiles that reach beyond 150 km and of course destruction of all WMDs themselves. Now which of those did they comply with fully as they were required to do to be legally immune to any act by the member states that had the authority to carry out whatever means necesary to ensure they were? Got to hear this one. Now don't tell me they were tryng because they wern't. South Africa became clean in a matter of months showing how things move along when you actually intend on doing it. Iraq had twelve years, ever figure they didn't really get with the spirit of the resolutions? Show me where the UN is permitted to take over the military forces of fifty countries and do whatever they want. Show me where the UN can muster the forces to do this. I'll help you, they can't, never could. However, if they had said that nobody can move until they say so then certainly that would be relevent. Show me where, by quoting the actual paras , they had rescinded or 'suspended' the resolution giving the member startes that were assisiting the government of Kuwait the authority to take whatever action necessary to ensure Iraq complied with the origional and all subsequent resolutions. You keep saying it is clear but cannot show us. If it is clear, then would you not think there would be a sentence or two in at least one resolution that said that, a sentence that kept on being reffered to over and over to make sure people such as myself didn't think this was legal? I asked you before, was it written in invisible ink? It must be as you have not produced it. It is simple. Show me the proof, don't say stuff like 'it is clear' and all, when you cannot back it up with the actual text of the resolution. If it is that clear then you should be able to whip up the quotes in a flash. Instead, you dance around providing it by saying "I assume you have read....'" and all. Dig them out and show them to all those who have not read. Prove your point not by your opinion but by word of law. Well then, according to you, being 'seized of the matter' means that they are in control and will decide. To me, that is easily understood to mean that in their message to Iraq (you know, the guys that all these resolutions are being written for) that they will be watching and making sure they don't slip up. It never said that they are controling the Coalition of the Willing nor does it say they have taken away the authority the coalition is working with. In fact, they reittlerate the authority of the coaliton members that are helping the government of Kuwait. IOWs, the coalition has Iraq cornered and they will, if necessary, intervene with rulings while the Coalition carries out their mission to do whatever it takes to make sure Iraq complies with WMD and material, human rights reforms, return of Kuwati nationals, war reparations and such. In no way does that mean that the coalition cannot continue on their path, even if they deemed that the only way to get Iraq to comply was to commit themselves to a Regime Change.

He is talking about how true civilization is judged on how they treat their weakest members. That philosophical argument came out circa Plato. Homosexual marriage makes sense. Two people who love each other should be recognized by society. I'm ust making an observation that the rules have been the same for thousands of years. Not even saying they were right or wrong, just that they were the same. Now, they are changing and anybody who is simple enough to think that they will stop at one rule is going to be wrong 100%. This Really big change of today is nothing to what will come tommorow. Maybe not for decades or centuries but sooner or later, they will change in a fashion that is in present day unthinkable. Just as homo marriages, not even fifty years ago were unthinkable.

Maple, I'm not trying to be facitious, however, I am sure that Latimer paid dearly for his highly desputed crime. In fact, many feel that he did right or at least understand why he did that. On the other hand, we all agree that Svend did wrong. The Ottawa Sun quoted the Judge in the case saying something to the effect that 'there was no sense kicking a man when he is down.' Well, Latimer certainly was down. In his self rationalized 'compassionate action' he lost a daughter and his soul. Then, if that wasn't enough, the Judge went to town on him. A little discrepency here wouldn't you think? Murder and non-violent theft? Hardly n actual comparrison however, the publicity of the crimes is similar as is the likelyhood of either commiting the offence again. actually, Svend is more likely to steal again more than Latimer is to kill. Where is the cuttoff line for compassion? Parking tickets? Assault? I thought the rules were already laid down so that we wouldn't have this amount of lattitude. Another example is Keon, the Ottawa heart surgeon who got caught in a prostitution sting and rounded up with a bunch of other 'Jphn.' He wasn't punished simply because he, unlike the other unlucky saps, was a World reknowned heart surgeon. Cut me some slack. He was a horney old prick out to get his rocks off. Suddenly what you do for a day job has relevence in whether or not you are contributing to moral decay in our society? What a joke. The possibility of him doing the same act? Probable. I am merely supporting my contention that there is a double standard here with Svend, and used Latimer as one example. There are thousands more, we all know it. If Svend had been anybody else, he would have gotten a more severe penalty, and rightfully so. I am all for forgiving and forgetting. I would even say it is great for him to run for office again .... once he had done his time or fulfilled his 'debt to society.' It is an easy debt, much easier than what any of us would have been saddled with. However, I wonder how many common thieves are going to use the 'Robinson defence?' Probably a lot, and with a great degree of sucess I would imagine. A few tears when you get caught beating the hell out of an old lady might go a long way from now on.

It was my understanding that he was notified by somebody that he had been recorded taking the ring. It was then that he 'did the honerable thing.' Before it was done for him. What if I did it? They locked up Lattimer for twelve years, not like he was going to go on a killing spree if he was out of prison, so what is the point? Detterence? What?

Not sure what I said to deserve this. I will reiterate my points. It was said by some that homo marriage was a step in the right direction. I said (without saying whether I agreed with it or not, completely nuetral on the issue in this discussion) that by desintigrating the understanding of marriage for thousands of years (that being between a man and a woman for the purposes of starting a family with blood bonds) that it opens the door for some changes. I did not say whether the changes would be good, nor bad. I gave some examples of people in the future being able to marry inanimate objects, pets, sisters, brothers, their own children and even themselves. When challenged on it by those who think that homo marriage is ok and that what I said is judgemental in some way they showed their closed mindedness in thinking progress or, however you would classify actions such as the above, is impossible, simply because any changes will stop after marriage between two same sex partners is legal throughout society. Such a though is arrogant, the world stops and uses the same set of rules that our generation has set forth - forever? They pointed out that an inanimate object cannot give it's consent. I pointed out that consent is frequently not given in many societies of the world, hence, consent of a partner is not necessary and that it is quite possible in the furture that scince the 'traditional' role of marriage has been changed, that the examples I gave earlier are quite possible.. Then you said Not sure if you read what is going on and what I said so I will reserve my judgement on whether or not you are an idiot (in this matter anyways) until after you clarify.

I won't go so far as to call this guy a coward as who knows? When the bullets started to fly he might have been a regular Sgt York but he is a deserter. The army is a cohesion of people all with one purpose; to do the bidding of the Governing power. Is he doing that by changing his mind and taking off? No. Do is time like Caisus Clay did and move on with his life.

You were the one that said 'specific' and such yet cannot show the specifics. As for the war ending when Iraq fled the field, I think that the numerous resolutions demanding ceasefire terms be ahered to makes short work of that fantasy. Ah I see, they simply draft up and vote on stuff just to fill file cabinets. No, they simly left the resolution authorizing member states to do whatever it took to get Iraq to comply in place. I guess you never heard, it was never voted on. For the purpose of this legal arguement I don't care if they went to get free ice cream. We are talking legality here, not ulterior reasons and under the table incentives. Then show it. It must be written somewher that para 2 of resolution 678 was rescinded then. As for world opinion, it means little to this legal argument until it is set in UN law through security council resolutions. Like we all know OJ is guilty right?

The Unfinished War The UN authorizes the use of force to uphold the previous and subsequent resolutions against Iraq. Yet it does not state which individual countries may do so and simply refers to them or any of them as member states co-operating with the government of Kuwait. Just wondering, how did the UN decide that Shwartzkoff was going to be the General in charge? I mean, what if they had placed an Egyptian in charge and the US didn't like it? Easy answer, they didn't simply because they never had any control over anything but making the resolutuion which authorized force, the one that has been standing and reiterated time and time aain. there never was a UN force. As well, when did they stop this resolution as it has been mentioned in pretty much every subsequent resoltion? What about member states that are or were not co-operating with the government of Kuwait? According to you they must be the entire UN membership even if they never went to Iraq. Were the Iraqis (being members of the UN) also included in this membership? Why not? They are part of the UN as well. Give me the ‘very specific’ quotes please, the one(s) where it says that nobody can do anything until they, the UN decide what to do. And the other one that says that resolution 678 (para 2) is no longer in effect as they have decided that they don't need member nations etc doing things on the battlefeild on their ow because they, the UN have everythng in hand. . Date, time, terms and signatories as well as the name of this treaty please. Provide examples and text of law please. Oh well, so they may do underhanded things. To counter this (if it had any bearing whatsoever) I could go on about how Iraq USED to have hordes of chemical weapons, threatened inspectors, invaded Kuwait and yadda yadda yadda. Prove that this was illegal. Provide the information requested to refute the legal argument. We have the rest of the forum to bash the US and it being unfair but legal..

Why not get more people on your side? I would have too if I was them. Even if you arre right, this has little to do with the legality so, prove it was illegal.