KrustyKidd

You must be crazy. It was Carter. He did it right after he laid the groundwork for Iran to go fundementalist by pushing the Shah to make reforms and then not supporting him after things got out of whack. The Soviet Union got scared that he might help them out too and gave up. Regan. LOL like the Soviets figured America was strong or something. Right.

Where? Lemon juice between the lines so that only those with secret encoder rings can see the hidden laws? They might want to make a resolution next time in order to rescind previous resolutions that are confirmed to be in force with each subsequent resolution. Otherwise, people and governments might think it is only their opinion and not law. Kind of like what the comment is. Really? Where does it say anything to the contrary that ... You will note that they all say the same thing in saying that para 2 of resolution 678 is still in force. It never says that they retain control over who and when action will be taken. Never, not once, nadda, nil, zip. What does this mean? Resolution 1441 reaffirming the following: Resolution 678 para 2 Also recalls the following: Resolution 1284 which states When did the ceasefire from the Gulf War end? What was the date of the armistice? Who was there to sign the Iraq/Kuwaiti peace agreement after the ceasefire was over and peace became reality? You don't because it is stil a ceasefire from the Gulf War, hence the Gulf War is still happening except it is in the phase of a ceasefire. If there was none of that then how do you guage when a war ends? And where is it written who, how many and in what combination ‘member states assisting the government of Kuwait’ could use all necessary means to enforce the previous and SUBSEQUENT resolutions? I mean, this stuff is not meant to be conveyed through mind reading but rather what is put on paper. Well done! You are the closest anybody has ever got to a possible weak point in the legality argument. Most simply gloss over the documents without reasding them, I congratulate you. However, does it mean that? How do you know? Wouldn’t something that important be given more than a comment and be made clearer? I would still interpret, though, that the UN rulings meant that their resolutions were binding but that they retain the right to overrule them with further resolves. However, in the absence of further UN resolutions (and absence there was) the existing resolutions stand, do they not? Or do they? Or are these things written so cryptically that nobody understands them and can say for certain. As far as I take it, they are saying that they will be paying attention and not forgettign to look in on progress from time to time, not rescinding all previous resolutions, especially the one that gives authority to member states assisting the government of Kuwait to take whatever action necessare to ensure Iraq comp[lies with the ceasefire. Of course I know he was. Remember though, we are talking legality here, not what he thought or suspected. You bring up his name and he has said that he could not confirm that Iraq had no WMDs. And would not be surprised if they were found there. His testimony as it stands does nothing to prove the US was illegal or legal. You also forget the humanitarian, repatriation and reparation issues that were all part and parcel of the ceasefire as laid out in numerous resolutions. All not adhered to and just as incriminating for action as WMDs. Right on, in a legal argument you talk about morality and such. Wrong argument, the 'Bush is a sack of shit' thread is down the hall. This current thread with you and I is centered on legality, not right and wrong. I can tell you right now that the US may be stretching the bounds of legality in this but nowhere is it illegal. Yes it does. Resolution 1441

Forgive me but I wasn't confining my thought process to Canada. Rather human society as a whole.

Uncle! You win, we are a monarchy and the Queen is our head of state. Canada's Head of State supports Iraq war. Canada's Prime Minister does not. Queen Lizzie (To the troops) Jean (Pontificating on under what circumstances he would join the US in war) That pretty much sums it up. We stay out of a War because we have a democracy while the Queen waves tally ho! Still, you are technically correct and I was wrong, thanks for tuning me in.

Res 678 para 2. Please cite the resolution and para that says that. No he wasn't. He was pretty sure but not 'emphatic.' Also note that he thinks there were reasons other than WMD involved. I know there were reasons other than WMD involved, even legal ones that justified the invasion under UN law. Read the above resolutions on human rights, return of Kuwaiti property and POWs, war repatriations and such. Other than that, there was the strategic value of an Iraq not under Saddam in the war on terror. Blix: 'No surprise' if WMD found Yes. Also equally amusing is that this non related argument is thrown out in a legal argument as if it changes anything. Now you wish the US to attack Israel? Show me the resolution that gives authority to the US to carry out this action and then it may have some relevence here. If there is none then let's leave this one for a discussin on morality or whatever as it is LEGALITY we are discussing here. Morality? Thought you had a legal point.

Whatever you say it is. CIA Factbook Here, want to get technical, I suppose we are really a theocracy.

They don't hate Bush, they want to get in power. Pure and simple. They will do whatever it takes to do it same as Bush will do the same to stay in power. To think that two ultra left guys don't know there is a problem with terrorism is idiocy. They know, they know that Bush did what he should have and now have to deal with the Left who think that Bush was wrong while they are adopting his ideas and figuring ways to make them different. It isn't about Bush and Kerry to the informed voter, but the hows of getting the job done - democracy in Iraq, economy, oil, alternative fuel, ecology and such. Find one Republican who wants dirty air, one who wants Iraq to be a slave, one who wants a lousy economy and so on. It's not the devil and the angel here, two separate groups who steal each other's good ideas and use them as their own while discerediting the other.

Wars are fought by insurgents against governments and third world armies against proxies supported by first world governments and armies. Which ones does Iran support? Would they be ones that Canada, if having a strong military could give a hard time to if they met? This is the stick and carrot that makes a difference much of the time.

Resolution 687 they went through it alright. Renumbered pages and missing ones as well. Here is what Blix thought of it: The declaration of Dec 7

I think I made the point that marriage is somewhat more common than genocide with this comment: Maybe you can conduct your own poll to see how many mass murderers you know compared to the number of married people. That should set you in the right direction as to what is considered normal and abnormal behavior and can be construed as traditional. Get back to me. Black Dog Not too often you and I agree Black Dog, this is one of them. KK Black Dog No, we both determined that frequently consent is not the criteria, therefore, scince the other main criteria of marriage (opposite sex) has been thrown out the window, why would this consent issue not be as well scince it is fairly common not to have it in many societies. Are non-consentual marriages honored when immigrants come to Canada? Yes.

Let's build the track first, then let the people that are running the railroad figure out exactly what they want to run on it. And you would just give up right? How is that getting anything closer to peace and self rule? Do you not think that security and the establishment of a voting system might be kind of benificial in order to allow Iraqis to determine what form of democratic government they want? I mean, you have to start somewhere, why is it so terrible to oigionate with the style the US uses and then allow them to formulate it into whatever style they want?

Canada is a Parliamentary system not a Monarchy. 1967 was the year it changed. In reality though, we are a proportionate-elected- representative-dictatorship. Meaning that once every four years you get the one opportuinty to be free for a few moments in the voting booth. The remainder of the time, you live under the boot of the party in power wether yu elected them or not. When people cite polls of Iraqis and how so many percent want this or that you have to remember, more than half of us don't like our government either.

You impress me that you understand that democracy cannot be imposed but then in the same sentence show me that you are so far behind the times you're not even on the board. While democracy cannot be imposed, the conditions for it to be implemented can. That is what is happeneing in Iraq. Dictator out, transitional government in and more than likely, the Iraqis will figure it out. In order for democracy to be imposed, the US would actually have to vote themselves as democracy requires the participation of the people themselves. Hence, another falicy in that the people must choose their type of government or the 'maybe they don't want democracy' jibberish you often hear. By not making a decision into what type of government they want they already have made a conscious decision-by-indecision and have choosen not to have democracy. Once again, the conditions are being set for the ability for the Iraq peple to have a democratic government, nothing more (as that would not be democracy but dictatorship) and nothng less as that would be babysitting.

So then it was not during the Gulf War then. Where is it written that an ally or somebody you support at one time has to be supported forever? And how much support did Saddam get from the US? Figures that I knowof detail 5% from the US and over 80% from Europe. You go on about American support for bad regimes, you should be happy that the US stopped supporting him and did the right thing, not angry. Oh, I didn't know this stuff happens according to schedules, like a train or something? Historicaly it occured at the rate of over a thousand a month. You don't know what would have happened next week much less next year. Uh? I don't think those contracts were any good after March of last year. The French sure tried everything they could to ensure theirs were still good, all the hundreds of billions of dollars worth. Try Varying your news sources in order to get a broader picture

Argus, i go on about five or so forums and the war of course is a hot topic as is our relationship with the US. I have to tell you that what you have posted there is the most balanced view of the situation I have read in a long time. It displays reason with no rhetoric and states your view without rant. I don't agree with much of it but I know you speak from your mind, not your emotion, very refreshing for a change in a political oposite.

Absolutely. Now that we have that out of the way, let's get to where we lack in a serious way, our military. as there is much more than just mediation and talks that make the dictators of the world listen. Sometimes they only listen because they know you can back yourself up. Of course that probably does not enter into your Eloi mentality but I think that way. Speak softely and carry a big stick, not speak loudly and don't even bother to have one.

That does not make any sense. Please explain it without the rhetoric. If the US had intended to install an evil dictator more friendly to themselves would it not have made sense to leave the means to control the population in place instead of ripping it out and replacing it painstakingly over the period of a year and a half? Furthermore, why not install evil US friendly dictator right away along with the control ability and save over 400 billion and get complete control over the oil? It would save lives and Bush would get re-elected as long drawn out transition of power to elections would not be taking place. The Left would have gone on about something else by now leaving this to history. No, I don't use the same sources as you, rather mainstream and impeccable ones. I take it that Human Rights Watch is acceptable to you as is iraqibodycount.org? Human Rights Watch 300,000 dead due to Saddam (not counting war fatalities) Having devoted extensive time and effort to documenting his atrocities, we estimate that in the last twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or “disappeared” some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more. Bad int on what? We all knew what he was doing, all knew that terrorism thrieves in that area of the world, knew that nobody would be sorry to see him go, knew that a better system had to come there one way or another. What memo didn't you get? the one about how over fifteen thousand Iraqi lives have been saved so far by carrying out this action I take. As wel as the one that says that people with hope and lives free from torture do not strap on belt bombs while those with power to gain and the hope that the west's fortitude will will fail can win I suppose? Was that before or after the origional Gulf War and 911?

WMD? They have found them but not in the amounts thought by every leader of the free world and beyond. All decideing on the same int that Bush did. Are yu mad that Saddamis gone? I'm not, actually rather pleased as he didn't remotely obey the rest of the resolutions that he was supposed to like return of Kuwati Nationals, war repayments, destruction of delivery systems and revamp his human rights accords on his own people to come up to UN specs. I also would ask that I suppose that you find that MMs distortions and leading out-of-sync vidios and 'only one possible outcome' for same are not lies as well right? Was not Canada one of the 'member nations assisting the government of Kuwait' and so tasked with 'ensuring that iraq complies with this and all susequent resolutions pertaining to this issue' as detailed in UN resolution 678? Unless the UN rresolutions mean squat to you then he would not have been taking the law into his own hands. Quagmire? An interim government well on it's way to transitional democracy and elections. !0,000 Iraq citizens killed in a time period, that in peacetime, would have been over 25,000 due to Saddam in day to day enforcement to tolatatarionism and this is a quagmire? Hell, over half our country hates the government and you think Iraq has it bad? I would hate to be near you when things go downhill. Do you give up, complain, do anything but get on with it or what? I'm torqued at him as well for not telling the truth. However, he was dealing with people that couldn't even get on board when the belief that there was personal threat involved. How would he expect them to understand that the freedom of Iraq was in order? Hell, most don't get it now. Terrorism thrieves in places where things are not right, know any democratic countries that are big terrorism recruiting centers? Iraq is the first step in the main war on terror, to change it into a place where people have hope is a coup and probably and infectious one as well. You don't get it now so why would you have gotten it then? Do the words 'long and hard struggle' mean anything to you? Or were you wating for the 'this is gong to be a pushover' speech? The west's greatest strength is also it wekness, free speach. Terrorists know that we are divided and this gives them hope that they will win. Shoot, when a fighter sees weakness in his oppponant it gives him strength to go on with gusto, why do you assume they don't monitor the media and forums such as this? Saddam did and it gave him hope to the end as he pointed out to Dan Rather in the final interview. Rather than submit to the UN he said that the US would never attack and pointed out demonstrators the world over as his rational. The reason the insurgents are killing Iraqis by the score is not for freedom but to return to their rule, the media and detractors of freedom give them the hope and rational for carrying on.

There yu go Stoker. Got your answer yet? Troll. From now on, don't ever ask a legitimate question more than once. Ceasar, does that mean that it does not say that they have to purchase our beef? Only asking once here, try to be civil.

The reasoning is that Democracy is better than dictatorship. People with more control do better than those with little. People that are doing pretty good are in a better postiion to influence others to do good as well like their nieghbors and such through increased trade and cultural exchanges that follow along with that in a natural form. People with better prospects for the future are less likely to become terrorists. Iraq with it's fairly modern society, educated people and oil is probably the best possibility for creating an environment in the Middle East where democracy can reach realization. Therefore, if it cannot work there it is unlikely to work anywhere. The stakes are so high that they are not even though of by the normal person. If Iraqw fails then the US will probably not even bother to try it again. It will be back to either Dictator support or simply withdrawing unto themselves and wating for the first WMD attack. Then Armageddon on the perpetrator. No talks, support to take influence away from the terrorists, just a Patriot Act the likes never seen scince Nazi Germany and total retaliation. That's why the US will stay in Iraq and why it must be supported until it succeeds by everybody. There is no downside to a democratic Iraq but there is to failure, and it has global consequences.

I don't think that genocide can be construed as a normal process in life. Unless of course you are Stalin or Pol Pot. You can't be though as your English is pretty good so you must be another of the handfull of Genocidal Maniacs that have and still grace our earth, hardly mainstream society. Logic? No, I ask that you read my post and challenge you to show where my logic led you to believe that. Again, using my logic ...... IOWs, what has been normal for thousands of years has changed. It opens doors and the opportunity for a lot of social norms to be changed drasticly in ways that those who wanted this change cannot predict. Some have said that a man may not marry an animal because that animal may not give it's consent. LOL, is that the new criteria? It used to be simply a man and a woman, now it is consent. However, in some societies, consent is not given by the woman so that throws that criteria to the winds. So, I guess we are into a whole new ball game where the possibility to marry yourself or your child whatever, the fire hydrant down the street is all a possibility. Unless of course one is so closeminded to think that this is the end rather than the still unfolding adventure. Thank you. Your's sucks big time.

Yes. With no test it can be refuted in court and less people charged and punished. Therefore less chance of being aprehended as police know they stand little chance of making any charge stick. If you think that the lessening of DWIs is because of individuals good graces rather than aggressive law enforcement then you why have police at all? Put every human on the planet on the honor system. LOL, what a world no speed limits, murderers free until they turn themselves in, rapists never being aprehended, all of us running around with pump action shotguns to protect ourselves. Yes, I certainly do think that the test for alcohol makes us safer, just as a test for MJ would as well, a lot of humans will do whatever they figure they can get away with . Sure, because they are scared shitless they will lose their license if they get caught drunk while driving. Remove that threat and your DWIs will skyrocket. Your comment about putting money in the pocket of society by catching drunks is laughable. For the amount of effort in giving a roadside test, transporting the individual to the station for a breathalizer, then time spent charging him and returning the officer to duty after writing the report is immense. Not to count the court appearance with judge, filing, recorder and security and all. Twenty uncontested speeding tickets doubling or tripling the fine amount could have been handed out.

True, yours was You recognize that freedom is impossible withing society yet you still say this People here are free to change their status, to get rich, to get por whatever. It seems that it is the degree of difficulty that is the problem, not freedom.

I guess then that I am in the minority then as safety is my only concern with the stuff. Nothing zenophobic about that. You make sense with your argument but there is no way our highways and operating rooms should be subjected to anindividual's choice in whether they think they are high or not high. Bring in an accurate and easily administrated test and all my opposition will vanish.

Mariage has been the union of a man and woman for thousands of years, with the reasoning that they are the core of the family unit. Now that political corrctness has come along this has changed for the first time in thousands of years. In order to make your example correct, we would have to have a guy get on the bus with a group of accompanying drumists from an ancient civilization, they would have to play it loud wherever they go in your town rather than at a ceremony in a remote region of the world. They might even do it during a private sacred homo wedding ceremony. Main point is that with this law the world has changed, period. For the better or worse? Who knows, I just know that it opens all sorts of doors as thousands of years of previous custom have been changed. If people don't understand that one and the opportunities it leads to for further change then thier imagination lacks.