KrustyKidd

It sure does if you are using the United Nations as your benchmark. If you are using those weirdos that can't even hold a quorum in a hotel conference room because they are looked at as radical idiots then I guess anybody but the local drunk would be wrong. How gracious of you. Nexrt time we meet I won't even try to be civil. BTW, I checked out your Vanity Opinion Site that featured your goateed puss as the feature cartoon and laughed. Lots of fact happening there. Only an idiot would quote themselves as fact in order to make a point as you did on this forum. I quote one of your own readers who, responding to one of your sage posts, managed to provide you with excellent advice. I played with you as a mental exercise in order to see what crap you would pull and then realized that you actually think you are right. As I said before, there is not one Leftist on this site who would take on your argument. Lonius did for a two post convert but for the rational that WMD were not proved, not being aware that there were four other items that could (and were) used as pretext, not the legal reason. They are no dummies as they put forth many arguments as to why this was morally wrong (which we address in other threads) Your attempt to come in here and play idot becasue you have never been up against fact must have been a familiar role for you but probably rarely ever get called on it as you deal only with other ill informed Letists in day to day rhetorical chanting. Never facts. Anyhow, now that you have provided the link I will endevor to let all your worshiping readers know that the Emporer has no clothes. Look for me, I'm "revsanidiot' and my first post was ..... Child. Right. We sure can, as long as we do so with the knowlege that the US invasion of Iraq was not illegal. Unless of course you have factual evidence that it was. If you do, I should like to see it considereing relevent UN resolutions say it is completely legal. As for being a robot, there is only one right and that is law. Forgive me for continuing to quote the only thing that makes this action legal - law. The actual laws. Not a myrad of opinions from disgruntled pacifists with various agendas but the one and only law applicable to this issue. Yes, forgive me for continuing to quote the law. You outlaw you. WTF, make up your own laws right? Call anybody that cites law in the face of your opinion a child and a robot. You rational guy you. And get a shave.

What are you, a war monger? The only way to encourage a corrupt despot like Saddam to give any democracy to the people of Iraq is to oust him by force. You radical violent bastard. I suppose you are all for US hegemony in industrial sectors as well. Typical of a someone who trys to puch for democracy in an area where there is nothing but a raw material. Oust the dictator by force and make the people sell their raw material. Typical.

Thank you for the giggle August, as you know, I was quoting a character from a fictional world, one in which so many live.. Yes. Slave is too strong a word. Pick a system you wish to work within and let us know what it is. Then pick the country that is the best at it and live with it controling the world. Get back to me will you please. As for the indirect power, think of it this way. You hand five bucks to a Salvation Army guy at the mall, do you not assume that it goes to the poor in some way shape of form or do you just figure that if he gets a five dollar hooker that everything is OK? I mean certain expectations are in order here. That of conforming to what the money was intended for and obligations that it be used to help in the longer run. In the meantime, let me give my two cents worth. Islamic Fundementalism is not my first or last choice, Communism would be worse than genocide, socialism is great providing you live on a fifty person commune, a Dictatorship is Faboo if you are the Dictator as is an Aristocracy. What exactly is it that you wish and who is it that you wish to be the best at it. The one providing the benchmark so to speak? I mean, in a free world, some will be better at it than others, if not the US then it would be the French, or British. Should they lower their standards because the rest of the world cannot keep up? Should they not take advantage of their excellence in industry? Should they be punished for it and forced to lower their standards to make up for our deficiencies? Thoughts please.

Time to move democracy into the Middle East then. As the most empowering form of Government on the Planet it seems to be the most effective at decreasing desparation in the population and hence, turn to terrorism. Acting in a democratic world, these people would better be able and suited to counter the ill effects of the US Administration.. Wouldn't you agree?

I did read the link you provided. This is the same bogus 'unofficial' 'have no authority' group that you were going on about earlier. Also, where does it state that UN resolution 660 - 1441 which were all unanimously approved by all members of the UN security council has been nullified? If you recall, the UN passed 660 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The approval for military action was outside the articles you just posted and made legal by the security council. Scince that time, thriteen more resolutions have been passed all authoising further action against Iraq. This did not mention any of them. Are we to assume that UN law and Security Council Resolutions mean nothing to these 'unofficial' and 'without authority' lawyers? Oh yes, the experts that cannot hold a meeting. I suppose that these guys who can't even get past security to hold a meeting are your type of people? No wonder you don't respect international law and United Nations Resolutions. Let's see, not allowed in a hotel to meet, no official status and any finding is not binding. Wow Rev, these guys are earth shakers. Their words carry so much weight against UN resolutions that provide for the basis of international law on this planet. Anyhow, here are a few resolutions. As you have read them indside and out, back and forth .... side to side whatever, this will probably put you to sleep. Can you go over these one more time and show me where this 'unofficial' and 'no authority' group has the authority to overturn the rulings of the highest body on earth? Show me the UN resolution that has nullified the following please. 687 Para 2 of 678 and, for people like you who think these resolutions just fade away...... Resolution 670 Resolution 686 Just in case you forgot what para 2 of 678 was..... and just in case you still don’t get it that these resolutions are still valid until voted out by the security council they let morons that may not get it know that nothing has been dismissed. Resolution 686 What was that paragraph? You probably forgot, I will quote it again for you ..... Resolution 678 Resolution 1441 (This is November 2002 BTW) and .... and ..... here it is, a few of the reasons why it is legal after the US has been given authority. Triggers that don’t have anything to do with WMD (Which BTW provide ample justification on their own.) BTW, seeing how you don't like to get your news and facts from the source itself, I give you an interpretation form a source that doesn't get booted out of hotels. And, I might add, does have authority and who's findings are binding within his realm. STATEMENT BY LORD GOLDSMITH I eagarly await your next FACTUAL yet full of only opinon post. And a quote of the laws that nullify the resolutions pertaining to Iraq. The ones you cited (I mean your unoffical guys cited) were wrtitten before the UN resolutions and hence, are subject to exceptions which came in the form of umpteen resolutions. Resolutions which you purport to be oh, oh, oh so familiar with. Please provide the laws or resolutions that the UN Security Council passed to nulify those resolutions. They must be right at your fingertips ..................

Your point? What are you talking about, the security council legalized action in Iraq fourteen times in as many resolutions. The last did not fail but also did not pass with more voting for it then against it. (7 - 1) so your little theory of how the world was against the US might be true if it were a congeniality contest but it is law that you and I are talking about. Only the securtiy council has say on what is legal or not in this aspect. Scince nothing was passed or rescinded it left all the other resolutions in effect. The ones that made this action legal, please provide proof that they were not still in effect Rev. As for this being wiggling I have maintained the same strong position scince you made the statement that the action in Iraq is illegal. You have attemped to pass off opinion as fact, sidetrack this with a larger argument and even wanted me to go on a scavenger hunt with some voluteer organization who's sole raison d'etre is to bash the Bush administration. Even their own lawyers admitted to having no official status nor authorityl even though you were attempting to pass it off as more than what it actually was but have offered no legal proof of an argument that is a legal one only. ("Iraq was an illegal war, the Bush administration acted outside of international law when they invaded. ") Scince you contend that the above is true, I would have you submitt the applicable laws that have been broken rather than opinion from people that are not on the UN security council. You have not, and even tried to use Koffee Anon to make your point forgetting that he holds no vote on the security council or any other portion of the UN body whatsoever and therefore, has no say. He is a chairman only, with no voting rights. (Which makes me wonder if you even have a clue about what the hell is going on overall) So I can only surmise that you have no proof other than opinion and ask that you retract your statement or state it for what it actually is - your opinion and and based on others opinions as well. Not fact. I quote law and you quote opinion and say that it refutes fact. Hmmm, something missing here Rev. Opinions are not relative to the argument on their own. They possibly might carry a bit of wieght if they were supporting a fact but in your case, you have not provided one so they have nothing to support and hence, are meaningless. As evidence, they are proof of nothing. My 'silly little argument' on the other hand isw UN law. Surely you have heard of international law and the United Nations? If you haven't then I would suggest dropping this thread altogether Rev as it is beyond you. Besides, all the quotes you provided all say that they are not sure that this action was legal and none of them say with absolute certainty that "Iraq was an illegal war, the Bush administration acted outside of international law when they invaded. " instead they use guarded terms like "not certain,' "possibly' "may not be entirely" and so on and forth. Hence, even your own supporting miscillania does nothing to strenthen your factual statement where you are absolutely certain that it was illegal and these guys are not sure it was entirely legal and rarely touch on the 'illegal' part of your statement. Again, quote the law or UN Security Council Resolution that recsinds all the resolutions pertaining to Iraq that give member states authority to take any action necessary to ensure Iraq complies with resolution 660. No opinion, no conjecture, just the resoulution or laws themselves. This is not unreasonable as it is the crux of the whole point you put forth when you stated this as fact Are you trying to tell us that you did not know which actual law they broke or you make such strong factual statements based only on the opinion of others? Surely you have a law to back this up with, after all, you did not say that 'a lot of high up opeople think the action was illegal.' No, you said it was and therefore you are expected to quote laws and facts that counter the existing laws which stated that 'member nations assisiting the government of Kuwait are to take whatever action necessary to ensure Iraq complies with resolution 660.' We are all still wating Rev. It's easy, just cite the law that you used as research when you made this statement. "Iraq was an illegal war, the Bush administration acted outside of international law when they invaded.

Just as valid as mine? My dear Rev, none of them are the UN security council which is the higest authority on earth. The one that gave the US and member states assisting the government of Kuwait the authority to do what ever is necessary to ensure that Iraq complies with all the resolutions pertaining to it. I looked at your authorities, even after you stopped reading my posts I do read yours to see what little twists and turns you are trying to wiggle out of this with and none of them look like an actual law or resolution. Matter of fact, they look like opinion and conjecture. So where, at the base of this tower of rumor that you have built is the actual law or resolution that recsinds all the resolutions that authorize military action in Iraq? Now, show me the actual laws that say that the US cannot carry out the resolutions as perscribed by the UN. Koffee Anon questioning the legality? Hmmm Rev, that sounds like he is not sure if it was legal or illegal. Guess maybe it isn't a 'slam dunk' for your argument. Bone up on your facts instead of searching for opinions and get back to us. Ceasar, Blix found enough discrepancies to provide a legal basis for the action. Iraq submitted a twelve thousand page document that had lies, reconsituted falicies and doctored pages in it. That document alone was basis for this action. The drones while pretty minor was also an infraction that allowed for legal invasion. The inability to account for percursor agents and the wherabouts of thousands of pounds of VX and chemical agent also legalized it. Not even mentioning the Anthrax (which would have been inert by then still was an infraction.) The legality was certainly there. As you agree with me, the rest is debatable. If you and Rev can agree on that then we can move on, if not, come up with the applicable laws that don't exist changing the security councils authority. i am glad there is two of you now, possibly that will increase your chances of finding the non existent varience in the resolutions. As for saying that you statement of the invasion being illegal was a bald faced lie, I am sorry. I was wrong. Like Bush saying that there was WMD in Iraq, he was mistaken and spoke an inaccurazcy as fact fully believing it to be true and therefore not a lie. Same thing. You thought that that is accurate and it is not, therefore, it is an inaccuracy and non factual statement, not a lie. Sorry. I guess that Bush did not lie and either did you. I wonder if you will be the man that he is and admit that you are wrong. He did after all say that he has not found any large quantities of WMD in Iraq, I figure that to be of the same moral fibre as he you could at least say that you cannot find any laws that state that the war was illegal although you are still looking. Are you the man that Bush is Rev?

No we are not. Nobody is a slave to America. You may think you are a slave because your system doesn't seem to work very well but that by no means entitiles you to 'slave' status and all the excuses for failure that go along with it. When I go into the states and work, I make money. Am I a slave to America? No, I make money when I go to Montreal as well and I am by no means a slave to Quebec. if I didn't want to go and make money in America and hated them so so so bad, I wouldn't. I would go to Toronto and do my gig there. If I am a slave, it is only to my own ambition. My business smarts tell me that my ambition can be fulfilled using the opportunities that the US provides at certain times, and at others, our own (which BTW are very similar to the US's.) If you find that you seem to be a slave then possibly you would find it better to stop using their products and inventions. Move to an area of the earth where they have not influenced (if you can find it of course.) It's an extension of sur vival of the fittest in a way. Their system works better at this time and others don't. I mean, if you like using a bycycle for transport and smoke signals to communicate with, go for it. If not, don't blame the US for making cars and cell phones, just use it and get on with your life. If your village has no work and they provide ajob, don't take it, continue to starve, if you want to work, take the opportunity and then complain about how you are a slave, one that is fed but a slave none the less. If you wrern't a slave to the US you would be a slave to something else Lonius. A life of low tech survival, communism, bad tv shows and lots of CBC. It is always the most sucessful and popular people and things that gain infamy and envy. I was just telling my daughter the other day that not everybody will like you, no matter how nice you are, there will be those that dislike you simply because you are sucessful and popular. You and I are talking about this on another thread (Iraq) If the US was not in Iraq then somebody else would be, Saddam. If they pulled out tommorow then there would be other violent individuals or groups vying for power and killing huge. Other than Antarctica and other unpopulated areas, there is no such thing as a vacum in politics. Given the capabilities of the US and it's wealth, I would rather be aided by them than any other force on earth. Can you imagine the fiasco if France went in there and tried to free them from Saddam? It wouldn't happen, Russia would have slaughtered them and Canada wouldn't even have made it to the outskirts of Babhdad or even crossed the border for that matter. And if any of them managed to free Iraq, nobody has the money to rebuild it except the US. I sure do like the way they treat their slaves. I'm almost thinking about culturing some Anthrax so I can get my ass 'Regime Changed' and get a new deck built by them.

No i don't think that was what was meant. If true then Canada earned nothing and should be living under a brutal dictator. Unless of course, simply paying taxes and being a good, obiedient citizen is considered 'earning' you freedom. as for your point about the Koran, we shall see. Is derfinitely is a problem to be dealt with come the near future.

The 'X' Prize The private industry space race is on! BTW, MADD assumes that the other paty values life just as much as you do. If OBL had acess to delivery systems (above) would MADD stop him from tackling this logistics problem? Winnipeg and Knoxville. Real armpits. From the list, Seattle and Portland without a doubt.

Quote applicable resolution excerpts, your contention that the resolutions get old is false. Just in case there are idiots interpreting these resolutions the UN always refers to the applicable resolutions and states that they are still in effect. That way, morons that don’t quite get what the heck is going on can understand that the old ones are still effective. In this case, they even made a new resolution 1441 that once again reiterated dire consequences is Iraq did not adhere to it’s part of the cease-fire. I am more than willing to argue the entire thread, however, when I encounter a bald face lie and a person that cannot back it up with nothing but heresy and opinion (you have not once cited a quote from a law, resolution, UN order) there is no point in arguing or addressing the overall thread as it is probably crap as well. Either you recant or prove me wrong. There is nothing wrong with simply saying that this war was ‘immoral’ or ‘unwarranted’ I can deal with that as it is arguable. To say it is ‘illegal’ is false. There is no authority on the planet that has stated that it is illegal and backed it up with the applicable laws and addenendums as well as resoltutions that make exceptions to existing laws. Some opinions say that it may be illegal, or that it may not be legal. However, these opinions are not international law. In any case, even if by some stretch of the imagination it were ever found to not be legal, it does nothing to prove it was ‘illegal.’ You have a long way to go to prove your point. To start, try reading the UN resolutions pertaining to Iraq. Then try to find out where they say they have a sundown clause. They don’t. Or do they? Tee hee. You don’t have a clue do you?. KK Your tribuanal is a rag tag group of leftist intellectuals from various peace organisations across the planet. And I looked at this and laughed. Which cabinet I wonder? The one with the left handed pipe dreams? Anyhow, I did some looking and came up with this; Room 215 BYOB And make sure you brush your teeth after every meal. Yes Rev. Bush must be quaking in his boots. BTW, are they supplying the pizza or should I grab a Big Mac before I go? Unofficially, without authority, they found your love of Johnny Horton somewhat weird as well. Sarah Flanders Organization Picture (re-enactment) Here’s a picture of a Sarah Flanders. Don’t think it’s the same one. Not a bad looking girl although I like my Klazzy Kruella much better . I guess the one you have here is not too famous. Blix was an inspector. He reported to the UN security council. He had as much to do with decision making on war and peace as your car mechanic does on telling you when to take your vacation. Some relevance, but not the decision itself. I quoted his findings, they gave the proof the US needed to carry out the action. Obviously you have not even looked at them. I suppose you figure that the usual limp arguments you and your left wing buddies rant back and forth ad nausium wash just as well here as long as you bash the US as day to day fodder are valid points. Sorry, they don't. They do if you supply proof and in this particular argument you need some. I quoted them above for you but you said you had read them all so you have to dig them up yourself. Kidding right? You must have been out playing with your chickens or something as there was never even a rumor of rescinding these resolutions. Matter of fact, it was only the wording of the US/British resolution that stopped it from being passed. Not the intent. It required 9 out of the 15 security members to approve and the US had 7 for sure and 6 undecided. 1 no and France was going to veto it for sure in it’s present form. That is hardly an international condemnation considering the fact that the coalition has over fifty members in Iraq alongside the US. Sorry Rev, while there is a stated inaccuracy or lie being portrayed as truth we have to stay and get this done. That is why it is essential that you hit the books and get some proof in the form of laws, resolutions and cease-fire agreements, that type of thing. Give the law and quote it. Make sure you supply the link so we can all see it in context. It isn’t a lot to ask. I know you are new here but if you want to be taken seriously you have to do more than rant. Pick up a paper sometime. He went to the UN to make a case for UN support for the invasion, not permission. The UN knew that Saddam had been in material breach for the past twelve years as he thrwarted inspectors time and time again and had just finished passing an extremely strong resolution which re-enforced all the previous ones. The US wanted more than the legal right they aolready had. They wanted unequivocal support. UN support would mean more troops, more assets, more support in the form of money, resources so it would take some pressure off the US. Also it would send a definite message to Saddam to back down and thus possibly prevent this war altogether as right up to the end he didn't think the US was gong to attack. He actually told Dan Rather the week before that the demonstrators in the streets of cities around the world were on his side and because of this the US would never attack. Blood on their hands? The resolutions that gave the US the authority to carry out the military action were already in place from a decade before and had been updated with each subsequent resolution, the last being 1441 in 2002 which maintained in the first portion that all ‘previous and subsequent resolutions pertaining to this matter shall be in effect. Just so idiots don’t assume that the old ones are to be discarded. Were you someplace with a Johnny Horton record and a 45 antique record player? No media of any sort? BLIX’s reports tell you of missing pages from reports, doctored pages, non cooperation all material breaches. Then he tells you about the missing tons of mustard and VX agent as well as missing warheads. None of which can be accounted for. Put it together with the deception and the doctored reports as well as history of anything but co-operation and what do you get? I know. Somebody I can sell a Johnny Horton Jubilee 45 to - Rev Blair. After a lengthy trial, the Judge asks the Jury Foeman how he finds the defendant. The Judge has seen all the evidence, heard all the pros and cons but needs the weigh in order to make his decision. What if the Foeman turned and said to the judge that it “Was a slam dunk” and that “we, the jury find the defendant guilty.”? Rev, I actually dislike the man strongly. I bet more than you. I wouldn’t be able to stand being in the same room with him. It is a personal thing really and has no bearing on his ability to be president. Great idea! Let's do it. Before we move on though, just a small detail, provide the proof that makes this war illegal. Quote the link, article, paragraph of the actual law or resolution that rescinds the resolutions that give member states the authority to take whatever action necessary to ensure that Iraq adheres to the cease-fire agreement of 1991. Then we can move on. Here is a way to get around actually having to do all that work researching only to find out you have squat and then saying something embarrassing like “I was mistaken” or “gee, whar did that thar dam resoloochun cum frum? Haw haw?” . Instead of saying Say Simply say that. If you keep it the way it is, it must be proved whether I am right or wrong. BTW, like I told you before, I am not wrong. The reasons, rationale, morality may be complete garbage, but the legality is sound. Rev, you are starting to look like a pansy dicking around with this. Fess up with the goods or stand down.

Good post Black Dog, direct and to the point. And free of rhetoric. I hope I can do it justice with the same. Before I get into it though, I wish to point out that I never once did the mindless Right Wing Rhetoric thing of ‘You must be a Saddam lover.’ Rather, I asked a question of what is wrong with him being out of the picture, and also stated that you have, in my opinion an unrealistic dislike (possibly hatred) of the USA which you blanket-coat all it’s actions with. I consider you a fairly intelligent (if not very intelligent) poster and am pretty sure that you are above hatred of static institutions. I also thank you for not doing what so many do, and rather, actually narrowed the discussion, rather than try to enlarge as well as offering this clear, stark look into your reasons. Are you sure you are OK with this statement? I mean, normally you are throwing every little negative occurrence in our faces to use as a shining example of why the Iraq action is totally wrong. Now you are saying that problems are a normal occurrence when an action such as this is taken. Wow. Althoughto you, the US action is wrong for reasons you state, the collateral damage is normal, the US is doing nothing wrong other than the overall mission they have undertaken. Freedom carries a price. Why have the UN then? Why would we help France in WWII? Why should we send peacekeepers to Yugoslavia? Shit, for that matter, why is it so unnatural for the US not to simply take over the world? I mean, what you are advocating is ‘if it can be done, let it be done’ right? Scince the US is in Iraq now, they should just move into Jordan and then take over Saudi. It would be the natural thing to do. Hell, for that matter, they can come into Canada after they used our gun registry to find out where all the weapons are and take us over too. Like, if it feels good, it must be the way things are supposed to be. Freedom. Is this it? I expected a real reason and I get this; Some absolute statements ..............................and another one .... Homer Simpson? Who said that and on what social event was he referring to that was a proven? Was it anything like what happened in Japan? is happening now with the UN and world involvement as well as the massive financial aid being pumped into Iraq? Was it at a time when there is the mass media coverage that we have in this day and age? Is it kind of like Japan? Or like Germany post WWII? Don’t tell me about German democracy prior to as at one time Iraq had democracy as well. Really, your idea of them finding “their own identity” is the new, unproven idea. Here is a definition of democracy; A state governed in such a way. No such place. No such form of government known as democracy. In practice, true democracy works only with small groups of teenagers as they decide on which movie to go see on a Saturday and which restaurant they will hang out at afterwards. Even deciding with rock- paper-scissors is a form of random democracy but to govern a 25 million person country by democratic referendum is a pipe dream. Gaddaffi couldn’t do it and he is the dictator of Lybia. Even Canada is not a democracy, rather it is a self- elected-representative-dictatorship. Meaning that once every so often we exercise democracy and vote in a government to rule us for a set term. Immediately after we vote, we are subjects again with no choices in government. Granted we have rights and all as individuals and groups (among them laws to oust the government we have chosen) but essentially we are subjects. Hence, this talk of how democracy is being foisted on the Iraqi people is crap. A choice is being given to them. There will be a few candidates and they can choose which they prefer with the choices growing in number each year. I imagine some will be socialist, some religious and others more western valued. What is so hard to understand that they will have a choice? The way you go on about it is that they will have no choice but must accept (your definition of democracy which I imagine is a particular western style of government) In subsequent elections there might even be more radical parties running, even terrorists. Who knows? Is this terrible? They don’t get to choose? Instead, in your vision, we must have the UN appear and hand out RPGs, grenades, ammo and AK 47s and then, when everybody is equally loaded to the tits ......... it’s one... two ...three.... go! And let them find their identity? Get real. Identity. If they really feel that they are in need of identity and have to ‘find themselves’ there isn’t much to stop them from killing each other after a free election. It’s a political statement on its own and that option is always open. That is why elections should be tried first. Like I said, you have no compassion for the Iraqi people and simply dislike or hate the USA so much that you would see death beyond what these people have ever seen, in their streets, women, children all just to see egg on the US flag. If this isn’t your reason then please continue as I am missing a point Black Dog. I know you are not stupid or trivial so there must be something I am missing here. . I think that what you meant by this comment was that ‘A democratic style of government such as what we have in the west must be built from within, not without.’ Thinking about it, and my definition of it above I agree. II mean, if the only thing democratic is the vote and it must be free, then how can anybody force another to vote a certain way and then call that democratic? However, there is absolutely no reason why the apparatus, education and resources to hold democratic elections cannot be influenced from the outside. I mean, I vote but do not set up the polls or government counting systems. In short, all that needs to fulfil this prophesy as bogus is to hold an Iraqi election sooner or later. Hello, Black Dog. Earth to Black Dog. No identity? Does the phrase ‘Cradle of Civilization’ ring a bell? Ten thousand stinkin’ years of history and suddenly, a hundred years ago, they are subjected to dictators and foreign countries and now, freed and given a choice they have no identity? They probably figure they are Jewish or something right? A Baghdad phone book full of Stienbergs Goldstiens? The confused idiots will suddenly start building cuckoo clocks instead of carpets or something if we don’t set them straight by letting them slit each other’s throats. People in the former Yugoslavia didn’t know who they were either and needed to be set free to kill each other too. These Iraqis are a bunch of monkeys too ignorant to figure out how to work a doorknob right? I figure all that has happened is that they have fallen and need a hand to get up here. Exchanging? What the hell are you talking about? Five or ten years down the road when there is no Iraqi government or free elections, but rather a totally US control of every aspect of Iraqi life you can say that, until then, you have to take it at face value until proven different. That of self government on June 30 and self rule and free elections come next year. I know you have your doubts Black Dog, but they are not facts but rather suspicions. I acknowledge that self rule is a great probability, not a certainty but before you can use a political formula as a fact such as what you proposed, we would have to see indications that the US is planning to run Iraq forever. I see none of that. Of course there is going to be heavy involvement by the US for some time, just as a parent does not give everything to a teenager at once. It will happen though, and possibly with more violence to come in the form of anti US demonstrations and such. Even petitions at the UN and anti US resolutions there as well. Let’s see... Get rid of Saddam, a threat/possible threat to world peace, and then leave a vacuum so millions can die in search of another dictator/warlord/Nazi terrorist type government. Anything but set up a system whereby they might choose their governmental system. Hmmmm ... it does have it’s possibilities...... Yes, and then the US can invade them again when Iran makes a super Islamo Fascist state complete with OPEC rule. Once they give their first nuke to one of twenty terrorist organizations we can nuke them. End of problem. You certainly rock. Thanks for avoiding the ‘other argument.’ How else is a completely free vote to be instituted though? You have factions that rule by violence and must have order before any vote can be taken. Even at the optimum, there will be violence at many outlying polls come that day I am sure, it will be a couple of elections before a real Iraqi government becomes a reality, however, it will happen. If the US left it up to a civil war, there would be no elections, no choice, no identity, no history. Only the identity and history of the Dictator/Warlord/Nazi/ Communist State in power. Just a different dictator after many thousands died. Hardly an identity or an Iraqi system. Possibly not even an Arab system. Violent for sure though. BTW, I see you found a cheerleader. Sweet!! Mr Farrius America was a colony of Britain which revolted. It had an obvious single enemy entity to fight rather than try to extricate a strong terrorist/spy/secret police government from it’s midst. As well, there were not ten different violent-armed to the teeth - factions all vying for power covertly supported by twenty different governments and religions. With three surrounding countries drooling over the opportunity to carve out some territory once things start falling apart. Far from the American experience. It was a much simpler time. As well, events in America did not affect any other country in the world. Even Mexico and Canada who lived next door to them were unaffected. Absolutely. As to why they can’t do it themselves, Saddam was too busy building Palaces and hiding loot to do this and scince he has been ousted the insurgents haven’t been showing up for work on time. The guys that have been painting lines in the road for the traffic lanes have been getting killed so not much has been getting done. Scince there was no Iraqi government to restore services and transportation systems the US did it for them, and taking bullets. If you have a problem with that then try looking at it from the US taxpayers point of view, they paid $500 billion to help them out. Why shouldn’t they make some back instead of the French etc who contributed nothing? Now all we need is a way to have some free elections. First, have to get rid of insurgents. Then, we have an interim government, then, we get the UN in there to set up free elections, then, with all sorts of candidates from different political panties ranging form capitalistic to religious we hold elections freely. Then, just like you said, we get the right leaders in there and finally .... Irtaq can pay back some of the ten Billion that the US taxpayer lent them. Mind you, they are at a loss for the hundreds of Billions that the US forgave but so is a lot of the world c ommunity, mostly other Middle Eastern states. That's the price you pay though. And also another reason why the idea of letting an investement slip into anarchy. You want it to succeed. Get what you pay for. Good job Fasrris! . And I thought you were a leftist. Welcome aboard! And as for continuing to impose themselves you will note that they are trying to get out and each step forward by Iraq, the US steps back. Interesting trend isn’t it? With any luck, the only losers will be insurgents and Leftists. Even the French and Russians are getting the bulk of the oil contracts. Everybody is happy except the losers.

See, they are attacking already! Did the US send some 'test' missiles back? I wonder if we took all the money we put into the gun registry and used it for this in a more sedentary way, would NK allow us to register their missiles? That should make the Liberals feel better.

I should kidnap one of Farris's family. He will give me everything I want, even mating privilages with his wife, daughter and let me drink his beer. Where do you live Farris? After I kidnap your son and get this, will you still let me do a weekly kidnapping so I can get some money as well to support myself. I mean, if you are willing to let me once, why not forever? We can be kind of like Al Queda and the Saudi family Does the child I take tommorow not mean enough to you to give me what I want this time and the next and the next? If you don't go along with it, you would be considered an uncaring animal. Slave of America. And then, there are so many of you. People like you that would allow me to do this to. Hell, I could take over the world this way. Matter of fact, even if I couldn't there are enough of you that I would think that I could, and therefore make me keep on doing it. Damm, this is such a gig I could get going with all these idiots out here. Too bad that somebody else is doing it already. Actually, let's save me the trouble. Instead of doing anything illegal and threatening or kidnapping anybody, why don't you all just send me money and tell your governments to stand on their heads every tuesday at three PM. Otherwise I might do something. You have been warned. And your little dog Toto too.

Why thank you but I think I will flail away at you instead. To start, I commend you. You did not once refute my charge that you didn’t give a hoot for the Iraqi people and spent pretty much all of this predictable-as-usual post America Bashing and proving me right. Well done, my one-track-mind fellow poster. Bizzaro world. Mr Mglixyzpt right? You were doing OK before this came out, I was actually thinking you were somewhat normal. Let’s see, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, some only covered by a couple inches of dirt, all with a bullet to the back of the skull, slashed throat with knife marks on the spine, buried or burned alive. Hundreds of thousands of grieving relatives vainly scrambling through the sites desecrating them as they dig up corpse after corpse looking for missing loved ones. Forensic doctors racing to identify the remains before they get to them. Yes, the US is so close to being like Saddam and the rest of the idots they are fighting against. I see the 82nd Airborne is Cutting heads off prisoners, dragging the bodies of any insurgents they catch through the streets of NYC and ripping them limb from limb as the Stock Brokers chant Koran Verses. How do you spell over exageration Black Dog? B-I-Z-Z-A-R-O No, you hate America because you simply need something to hate and are too mindless to search for it in other than already prepared rhetorical safe places like America bashing. I mean that if it wasn't them it would be something else. I daresay that the 'something else' would be a fairly safe entity such as big business, government of some sort, religion, ecology, or whatever but it would be something. I think I told you on at least two occasions that I have absolutly no love or even like for Bush. I actually have a reason that you don't. I also said that I havn't been impressed by their performance in Central America and after the first Gulf War. I also told you that they should have thrown off this Vietnam Syndrome here in Iraq as well. There are a lot of reasons Black Dog, most of them do not invove the makings of a Tom Clancy novel or a Moore movie. America is a shoe-in for a simple Leftist focus object as it operates in much of the world, does not torture protestors and shoot them in scores, actually prints what people say and weathers idiocy rather well. . While not blameless for much of the worlds ills, it can also be thanked for much of the worlds successes. While their reasons for intervening in Iraq are multiple and some may be selfish, if you had a three dimensional mind Black Dog you would see that there is good mixed in with the perceived bad. Unlike you, I can see that many of those reasons can also be very beneficial to others, particularly the Iraqis. You have to tell me; To an Iraqi, what is wrong about Saddam being out of power? Shoot, as a westerner tell me what is so bad? Comon, got to hear this one. Betcha going to tell me about how Saddam ruled all these fools with an iron fist and there wasn't that much violence going around right? Good boy Black Dog, keep them in perpetual Gulag rather than set them free to protest. Only you get to protest right? What are the down sides? They can actually live without fear of ending up in a mass grave, They can buy food and stuff, soon they might have a job if they don’t have one already. Their son’s won’t have to be drafted to go to some vanity war with Iran or Kuwait and daughters don’t have to be a whore for Uday or the local Regime officer. Where is the downside Black Dog? While we are at it. What is the upside for the average Iraqi of having a civil war if the US leaves? You hate the US so much that you wish they would leave Iraq and allow them to kill each other in the thousands. Such a humanitarian guy you are. Crafty too. Gives you the added safety factor of being able to say a year from now that they should have stayed and fodder for scores of future idiotic meandering posts. Hedging. Now, back to the prison. I don’t suppose that Kerry’s camp is digging up any dirt that you don’t turn up do you? How about Rockefeller, you don’t suppose that he and his minions in the Senate Intelligence Sub Committee are doing the same? LOL, they sure are. There isn’t much to hide when you have a supposedly bi partisan committee run by Democrat partisan bastard like him. What I am trying to say is that the US broke the story, they dealt with it and continue to do so and if there is meat to put GW away it will rise to the surface. In the meantime, hear of any recent new abuses? If you didn’t then I guess that they are taking care of it. LOL, guess you really are a Liberal as you figure that nobody is responsible for fixing the problems they make themselves. Only thing missing to complete this charactiture is the 'Blame the victim' idiocy and you almost have that one in wanting the US to leave so 25 million people who have no experienced government in the middle of a freakin war zone suddenly, can RUMBLE!!! . Like I said, you would leave them with Saddam, that is borderline sicko. No, it is sick, once the UN gave the go ahead making the ceasefire they should have gotten rid of him first infraction. I suppose they were wating for a few reasons that suited them. See Black Dog, I know there are many reasons for this action and not all are good ones. But there are enough to make the Iraqi people happy. And what is wrong with giving them freedom? You sound like one of these Christmas charities with poor kids. They refuse thousands of badly needed dollars because it was raised by strippers. Like who cares who frees them, it is a humanitarian debacle to not free them whatever the ulterior motive.

Wow. I can't believe you actually said that. Yes, The UN is nothing to pay attention to. Always interferiing and trying to stop genocide or somthing like that. Silly guys. and their resolutions all have an expiry date too right? Kinda like a carton of milk, best before ...? Just wondering, if the old resolutions don't mean anything, how do you determine if the US did something legal or illegal? Divining rod? Eight ball? What fact Rrev? Where is there a sunset clause in the resolutions that are applicable? On second thought, have you even caught up with the resolution idea yet? What support are you talking about Rev? If it is instructions they are all listed in the above links and highlighted in my quotes. Then again, you figure that all the stuff they do is hand out "some old UN resolutions." Lonius Resolution 707 Wasn't up to the US to prove a damm thing. Saddam was the only one required to prove stuff, namely he was WMD free. Did he ever open up? Show me Lonius, show me where Blix was happy that Iraq had no WMD or material, facilities or anything. Read his report of Jan 27 where he talks of suspiciously missing chemicals and anthrax agents as well as doctored documents. Tell me where Iraq was cooperating playing hide and seek. If they were clean, they sure didn't let anybody know it. Resolution 678 Rev Nice try. No, actually we were talking about the invasion of Iraq and how you said it was illegal and had no proof to back it up. Guess things haven't changed much in the last few days. Nice attempt to enlarge the argument and hopefully dodge the issue at hand which is the legality of it. And what are the legal facts there Rev? Skip the pissed off houswives and tell me where the US violated UN Resolutions pertaining to Iraq. Which exact laws? Please provide links to the actual laws themselves, not the lawyers or peaceniks opinions. Let's see what the heck you are on. Your tribuanal is a rag tag group of leftist intellectuals from various peace organisations across the planet. LOL, if Bush actuall appeared and allowed himself to be taken away in irons they would shit themselves. Where would they house him, who would pay for his prison uniforms. LOL, and if he did appear, who would guard him during the lengthy trial. Rev, this is what you call a 'WORLD COURT?' It's a bunch of University proffesors and students mixed in with retired activists for crying out loud! I have to confess, at one point I actually was intrigued with your boasting of this event and wondered, now I am disappointed. Did they hold it in some dude's garage pledging alliegience to a Def Leopard Flag or what? BTW, . I held a court in my recroom today. We decided that you don't have a leg to stand on. That makes it official, unofficially. The actual stuff opposed to your goateed warriors and the illegal argument again Rev; First; Iraq was by order of the UN resolutions to cease all WMD, rid itself of everything. That means not just WMD but all research, refuse, plans, chemicals used to separate compounds or whatever, dual purpose equipment, infrastructure for same, attempts to purchase or acquire WMD.(no secret deals with North Korea) And .... prove it, not wait for everybody to inspect every stinking square foot of Iraq but to actually show how they have done it and where and when. Second; They were to fully cooperate with UNISCOM. Third; They were to cease all activity related to missiles and delivery systems in excess of 150 kilometers. If they refused or didn’t comply with all of the resolution's requirements then they would be in violation and have broken the agreement. The repercussions for that are resumption of hostilities meaning they could be beaten up, invaded or whatever it took to ensure they complied. . The Member Nations assisting the Government of Kuwait were charged with, and authorized to ensure these resolutions were adhered to by Iraq. What so many do not realize is that Iraq was not simply to give up it’s WMD, but rather EVERYTHING RELATED TO WMD and all aspirations of ever having WMD. The documents and the inspection Regime was built and geared to verify a willing partner in Iraq. Instead they found deception, WMD not declared, intimidation and eventually expulsion. This war might well have started in the nineties and would have been just as legal. One has only to read Blix’s reports in the later days prior to the war (obviously you have not Rev as it is factual and we all know that you avoid those like the plague), particularly 27 Jan 2003 (quoted in part with explanations above and linked as well) to realize that while not encountering battalions of smoking missiles with WMD warheads there was violations of the UN Resolutions even at that late a date after 12 years. There should have been nothing. One only has to look at South Africa and Lybia to see how quickly things go in WMD dissarmament when you really have a partner that is willing to cooperate and give it up. The confusion for many as well is that it has something to do with what Bush said when and where. I does not. UN Resolutions apply no matter what anybody says or does until they are rescinded. This means that the UN has to vote on a new resolution. The last minute resolution the US and Britain tried to push through unsuccessfully was an attempt to get the blessing of the world, not it’s permission. When certain countries on the security council defeated it, it meant that they did not support THAT PARTICULAR RESOLUTION. It also leaves all other resolutions such as those applying to Iraq and the enforcement of the ceasefire (yes, even those condemning Israel) in effect. Rev. I really hate to burst your bubble but these people do not make up the Security Council of the UN, nor do they represent the International Court at the Hague. I am sure they are all nice people who hate Bush and America immensely and have ears in many circles but in official circles don’t mean a darn thing. Yes indeed. We can go into that at another time. Right now we are discussing why you are wrong about the INVASION OF IRAQ BEING ILLEGAL. I am still waiting for your proof which, scince the UN authorised it as the highest authority on the planet, they are the only ones who can change the order. They haven’t. Rev, you actually have to understand the laws before you can say anything is illegal. . As much as you want it to be illegal, it is a legal issue that stands on it’s own. If you want to do a moral thing with it, sure, it can be tied in with events going back to WWI and even the birth of Israel. You can even say Bush was an idiot, not elected, America is imperialistic or whatever. The UN resolutions stand on their own, no matter what the political winds blow in. From Blix's report 27 Jan 2003 As I said before, it was not up to the US to prove anything but rather the Iraqis to prove that they had given up all WMD programes and hopes of ever possessing them. Where is that proof? How do you know he was complying? He never did before. How did anybody know? He destroyed a few missiles (which he didn't have a week earlier) and was friendlier to inspectors. So what? As Powell said about disarmement as this was occuring "This isn't brain surgery." And then went on how this was to little and too late. And really Lonius, the Iraq thing had a spirit of cooperation to it written into the resolutions. One that has been proved to not have been honored by the Iraqis. That is material breach right there as is the missing mustard precursor and the unaccounted for BX nerve gas. The 6,000 shells filled with chemicals and so on. One last thing. Bush called Tenent up to the Oval Office and asked him straight out if there were WMD in Iraq. He replied "It's a slam dunk Mr President. There are WMD in Iraq." This is probably the moment Iraq's fate was sealed. If a president cannot trust the head of the CIA to provide him with intelligence that is accurate then who can he go to? There is no higher authority to ask that question of. For all intents and purposes, Bush went to war believeing there were lots of WMD there.

Ahhh! I always love a good rant. Hail Caesar!

I don't know about greatest, leadership wise and ability to handle stress I would have to say Lincoln.

An impressive amount of work arranging all my quotes in self incriminating format Black Dog. All in naught though as I stated quite clearly that I thought that the actions are wrong, yet not severe enough to be considered torture in the normal sense of the word. When we think of torture, we think of bamboo shoots under the fingernails, a hot poker putting and eye out, a sadistic Nazi with a dentists drill or a muscular guy tied to a metal cot shouting “Adrienne!” as the amperage is increased. Instead, we are now more sensitive. Sandbags on heads to ensure no permanent humiliation occurs while human pyramids are made, underwear on heads, a woman (allegedly) being ridden like a donkey and now fully recovered, a broomstick up a guy’s ass. Wow, a regular holocaust. Anyhow, the US is investigating and has even punished some of those responsible. Loss of career for a two star General is Major punishment as is being dishonorably discharged. If there is a civilian charge applicable don’t you worry, for the US is looking to cover this issue base to base. In fact, they were on it before you even knew about it. I know that you can figure out the difference in degrees of torture as you mentioned that there was worse then ‘underwear’ on the head going on. Torture Thread Therefore, you should be able to understand that torture in Saddam’s time, was far far worse than what occured at Abu Garab: Amnesty Report on torture in Iraq And even you Black Dog have to admit that ... this is far worse than having underwear placed on your head. Saddam's atrocities, hundreds of thousands of mass graves from the past two decades. 290 thousand this article quotes. More, Yes, they are all recent. 300 thousand missing in the past twenty years. Fifteen thousand a year, twelve hundred a month on average. Thirty times as many as have been killed in the past fifteen months by US bombs, Iraqi bullets, Insurgent bombs and accidents resulting from all. On average, the monthly deaths have been 750 scince the US came. And on a bell curve as well getting lower and lower every day. Why am I telling you all this? You probably think I am comparing the supposed US torture to Saddam’s. No Black Dog, much as I would love to see a SNL skit on ‘Cigarette Girl’ sitting in a UN docket in the Hague beside Saddam, the US did wrong, at least the soldiers involved did. They are being handled in the appropriate manner. When the preamble for the war was gong on, I thought, along with Kennedy, Kerry, Chirac, Bush, Clinton, Blix and everybody else that WMDs were in Iraq. I did not however, lose any sleep about Saddam attacking America but have to admit that seeing the possibility of the Iraqi people free was exciting. When the rhetoric went from WMD to ‘Regime Change’ I knew things had changed a bit. I didn’t know why but to me, Regime Change was pretty good as the Iraqi people would be free. At this point the idea of democracy seeding began to hit home. All this time, no substancial WMD finds so far, terrorist rumblings, Insurgent activity all over Iraq, the vision of a free Iraq still excites me. It will happen. It is, beyond all else, the main prize to me. Not the re-election of Bush, not to prove I was right, but to see them free and a member of the world community. Imagine! The reason why I am telling you this Black Dog is to show all that I have always cared. To me, it is not about America, but Iraq. I think that the two will eventually go together and I also wanted to point out that you are the exact opposite. You don’t give a rat’s ass for the Iraqi people and are bent on bashing America against all else, simply to do so. If you say that is not true I will call you a bald faced liar. You, who would see Bush in front of a war crimes tribunal to satisfy whatever leftist fantasy you have, for having guys commit these crimes in Abu Garab is laughable. While Saddam was killing thousands in the afore mentioned despicable manner you actually protested the only force that would set them free from the torture that was daily Saddam! How the hell did you ever expect to get him in front of a war crimes tribual Black Dog? Give him cab fare and hope he showed up? You stood in the way of the only force that would save the Iraqi people. ‘Better tortured than dead’ you might have said. Well Black Dog, unless you have far different numbers it seems that Saddam was packing them away in peacetime much better than the US was during war. The other thing that would make me fall on the floor laughing were it not for the fact that there might be somebody actually thinking you are right is your fake compassion for the handful of prisoners who are victims of the Abu Garab incidents. And I will even go as far as to say Guantonimo as well. Shoot, raise it to hundreds if you want. Talk about a broomstick up an ass or two, or four, or ten for crying out loud. Your vision on how to correct all this, so that the Iraqi people can have the compassion they deserve? Something normal like Military courts martials, an apology, better supervision and restitution? Nope, you really love the Iraqi people, you want the US to leave, now. Yes Black Dog, leave. That’s what your solution is for all the ills. You said it here Was The War in Iraq Necessary, Black Dog Quote Yes, this is the stability that Black Dog would inflict on the Iraqi people because he loves them so so much.LOL, I just know that they don’t have the Iraqis interests at heart. Nor the Wests, and you have empathy for them of some kind? Trying to understand them? Get in touch with their feminine side, what? When asked if the US should pull out - LOL, you have me rolling on the floor with this logic! Save a guy with underwear on his head so that he can get taken out by a roadside bomb, take the harness off an old lady so she can go shopping for carrots and get her head painted on to the marketplace walls along with her grandkids from a bomb. And it would never end, tens of thousands of them, possibly hundreds, even millions in a five or ten way civil war. You rock! Such foresight and empathy. Are you from the bizzarro world or something? Black Dog Open your eyes: there is a civil war. The CPA has muddled through with no coherent plan for how to build a democracy in Iraq. The current government has no credibility with the people (more than half of which want the U.S. et al out immediately, regardless of the consequenses) and, if it wer enot for the 500,000 U.S. troops backing it, would fall in no time. So the scenario you've outlained is already being played out. Th eonly differnce is the occupation is presenting a target for the Iraqi factions that might otherwise turn against each other. So, the West is preventing no bloodshed, causing much of it. Oh, BTW, that was pretty cute last week when your ‘Freedom Fighters’ deliberately killed over forty Iraqis wasn’t it? Freeing them from life? Real popular insurgency. And you feel sorry for a few guys with underwear on their head. I think you have a slight problem with priorities Black Dog. Less Bush bashing and less support for insurgents might be in order. At least until things get calmed down a bit. Of course, hate America is the mantra of Black Dog Anything that might actually calm things down and save a few lives (Iraqi or American) will never cross your mind. Hence the reason why I know you don’t give a shit about the Iraqis, you only hate the Americans, everybody else you have an excuse for. That excuse is always the fault of America..

I supplied my proof Rev, is yours in hiding? Oh, BTW, when you get the proof, send it to John Kerry. He'll make you a millionaire, hundreds, if not thousands of Democrat lawyers have been trying to get real dirt on Bush since he was elected. They have nothing. Are you trying to tell me that you are a highly skilled, yet undiscovered lawyer who has the evidence that would put Bush away? Wow, get to Washinton fast, the Democratic party is wating for you. You are their secret weapon that can save them hundreds of millions in anti Bush ads. Why don't we move on? Easy, because this is a lie and we can't move on until it is corrected. Tell us all Rev, where is the UN resolution that makes all the resolutions authorizing force null and void? Comon Rev, give it to us. Comon Rev, we are talking the UN here. They make resolutions, not insinuate, rule with telepathy or send a fax. Where is the ruling that cancels the resolutions authorising force? Where did they say not to use force? I will ask it again, WHERE DID THEY EVER SAY NOT TO USE FORCE? I gave you the exerpts in the applicable resolutions that clearly state the authorisation of force and could even have quoted more, and you give me rumors of opinions. Wonder why your leftist buddies aren't helping you out here? Because they challenged me on this a dozen times and had no proof. They know you're wrong and won't touch this with a ten foot pole. Here is some opinion. Doesn't mean squat. Prove to us that it was illegal Rev. Here, opinions are like ____. Everybody has one, me, you. They are not a UN ruling. So where is the UN ruling that rescinds all former resolutions and says not to use force in Iraq? Where is the UN resolution that says that the US as a member nation assisting the government of Kuwait is NOT ?You can't just go around dropping an usubstanciated fact in the middle of an argument expecting it to be adopted as gospel truth. The links I provided were highlights of the applicable UN resolutions as I assumed that you had read them already in their entirety. Are you telling me that you have never read them or you don't agree with them? If the latter, which part? Here are the resolutions themselves. As I said earlier, none of them stand on their own. They constantly refer to other resolutions and you have to cross reference them in order to understand them. I do hope that you consider them somewhat relevent to the discussion as they are the deciding factor of this issue. In order to make your argument I just need the one where the UN says the US and /or 'member states assisting the government of Kuwait' are not permitted to implement the resolutions against Iraq pertaining to the ceasefire. No, Rev, Ramsay Clark and whatever intelligent opinion he holds is not the UN. It is not a resolution much as you would like it to be. The UN are the ones who made the resolution and they are the ones who can change it. I don't expect you to read a million links Rev. I do however, expect you to read UN resolutions if you are going to go on about legalities or illegalities and be conversant with the stuff you are going on about though. I fear that you may be thinking about the late February resolution the US and Britain tried to get passed specificly authorising the use of force. Britain needed to try that to in order to quell dissent in the oppostition in the UK. The US, reluctent to try it did so only to watch it fail. It's failure was only a failure for that resolution though, It did not cancel or affect any previous resolutions hence 686,678 and the others were still applicable. LOL, is it any wonder they were afraid to try another one? Loopholes? You bet. But prove to me that it was illegal.

Harper. All the way. He just stayed normal and didn't have a decade of BS to defend. Duceppe. Believe it or not, I'm voting for the Bloc. He made me proud admitting in all honesty that has no aspirations of the PMs seat but rather looking after his own. Honesty! Got my vote. And then he spent most of the time biting Martin in his Liberal Eleachist ass.

Can't stop with the personal attacks can you? Typical overreacting Black Dog. If you stop frothing for a moment, you will see that I do not approve of this stuff and stated so. The US has had an investigation going on before this even became public and how this all came about is quite normal really. MSNBC . As for not getting useful intel, what is useful intel Black Dog? It is names, times, observances, rumors, boasts. All corellated. You keep thinking 'smoking gun' and that every person arrested is thought to be high level Al Queda. Some are common street criminals, some are wrong place wrong time and others are genuine bad guys. When none of them talk, what do you do? Do you actually think that the US enjoys keeping innocent guys for the heck of it or would you think that there is a problem determining who is bad, really bad and who is the enemy? Beleive it or not, most prisoners are not innocent. This is a country in turmoil and people, at this moment in time have to be considered guilty before innocent. Most plots are discovered after questioning prisoners and detainees more than any other method. When lacking any undercover agents this becomes a prime source of information. That Col that was turfed out of the army saved a few lives of his men. Terrorist cells the world over are broken due to this method. Believe it or not Black Dog, none of them turn themselves in out of guilt. I appreciate the snitty insults Black Dog, they are so, .... confirming to me that you stoop rather than argue. Unfortunate as I would rather talk one on one with somebody that is a little less hateful so that things could actually be a learning experience other than an offensive/counter offensive partisan exchange. Anyhow, I make no appoligies for the US as I am not them. i am not Bush, Rumsfeld or any of those you seem to hate more than liver and onions. I am Canadian and observe what is going on and try to better understand it. I can see why things are, understand why they are. See how things are going and also see what mistakes have been made and, dare to speculate on the future. To tell you the truth Black Dog, I don't even hate Saddam Hussein and here you are frothing at the mouth hating Bush as much as Lonius hates the USA. As for this prisoner thing, read what I wrote before. I make no bones about it, unacceptable considering what the US is trying to do what with promoting human rights and all. However, perfectly understandable given the command structure at the time. The main 'atrocities' commited as portrayed by the press I have seen in peacetime in Canada, and worse. Simply an observance is all. If you see something terrible about my experiences and can dehumanize me because of them, you are an idiot. I know that at this point you want to call me a name or two, something in line with your exchange with Hugo last week. Maybe "self rightious prick" or something like that. But you cannot, as it would be akin to torture to a sensitive person such as myself. Worse than death to others. BTW, you mentioned in an earlier post that some 70 year old lady got ridden around like a donkey. Could you dig that story up for us please? I have to see it to believe it, she must have been built like a brick shithouse because any person sitting on a 70 year old would flatten her in an instant. How did she survive, how big was the guy that got on her, how far did she carry him? Please.

Desparate for a win Black Dog? So desparate that you have to put words in my mouth? Here is the origional post by me: I only work with the intelligence I get. I, unlike you and others who are simply working on gut feel and hatred I am not sure that the action in Iraq will be sucessful. I am not sure that terrorism will decrease over time, I am also not sure that the dollar will go up against the US $ or what the weather is going to be tommorow. I work with what I get and can find and do not automaticly assume the US is right when something happens. I do notice that you automaticaly assume that they are wrong and that this action in Iraq will fail. 100% certain. I suppose that if wrong, you will simply change your name and post in another or move to a different forum. I, on the other hand guard my comments if you notice, do not utter absolutes on future events as many unknowns can change the prediction. I do not know what the future holds and only a freakin' moron would say that they do. Nothing is certain. Probable yes, possible yes, but certain, no. As for the action in Iraq, we see it from polar opposites. You hate America, see nothing but failure and refuse to acknowledge that sucess is a good possibility. Aside from that, the first response was one of calling the state department liars rather than looking for an alternate source. I know I tried to confirm it and even said so Funny how this came out by admission of the State Department themselves and not through any 'dogged reporting' from any of this board right or left. Good thing the state department is honerable, otherwise we would still be in the dark. BTW, I was probably more surprised than you when I read that report. It was rather hard to believe. Maybe next year it will be true. Of course, you will say that 100% for sure that it will not.

Rev, i can't help you out here because you refuse to read the resolutions. You know, the one's that say Saddam and Iraq were not permitted to have any, and that means zilch, nadda, zip, not one shred of 'WMD, WMD Matererial, equipment, WMD resources or dual purpose equipment and facilities. It also went onto perscribe prohibbited delivery systems. Read all that and get it clear in your head that Iraq did not have to have a WMD on the tip of a missile to be in violation of 686,687,678 and 1441. Blix found enough to place them in violation in his 27 January report. They were even in violation in Blix's comment that 'cooperation left much to be desired.' Now look at the resolutions where they outline that this is a ceasefire and it's continuation is dependent on Iraq adhering to the above refered resolutions. They also outline that 'member states assisting the government of Kuwait' may recontinue hostilities if Iraq does not carry out their end of the ceasefire. There is no point going on with this if you refuse to look at the resolutions and continue to go with only rhetoric and feelings. Read them as I requested, then we can discuss them. As for you contention that I asked you to provide some proof of this. Please do. Even the French knew it was legal Rev. Here is one of three places in the resolutions where force by the US is permitted: Read thisResolution 686 saying Iraq has to rid itself of WMD and all material Or else "paragraph 2 of resolution 678 rremain valid" Resolution 678 to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; Hope this helps. Here. bone up on Blix. To summarize the summary (again) of 27 January: Nor do they exclude that possiblity Even Blix, who was doing everything he could to avert war could not say that WMD themselves were not in Iraq. Hmmm, that would mean WMD right? Hmmm, that would mean WMD right? Somewhere in the amount of 2 million pounds of it, enough to fill three or four semi trailers. Gee, Saddam was at least staying busy while he hampered inspections. What could he have been moving around with all those helping hands? WO! Iraq was seemingly decieving the inspectors. Imagine that. Why though? MAybe to keep the stuff they had said they destroyed even though they didn't? Hmmm that would mean deception and not cooperating with inspectors right? Hmmm, that would mean WMD if dropped in one of the warheads they had right? Hmmm, afterwards Blix discovered these have a range of more than 600 miles. This would mean prohibitted weapons right? Hmmm, scince then they have discovered scientists with crates of 'take home work' documents in their homes. One even had parts for a freakin particle separator in his garden as 'take nhome work' for crying out loud! Here is Kay's report after the war confirming that Iraq did have WMD material and resources Not much, remember though, Iraq said it had nothing, had no intent on possesing any of it and had given it up. Their telling the truth and being trustworthy was a big issue here. Guess they lied. Rev, as I told another member just a month ago, in order to understand what is going on you have to remember that Iraq had 12 years to get rid of this stuff and to ensure they were in compliance with 14 resolutions. Did they take them seriously? Did they adhere to the UN and cleanse themselves of WMD and related activity like they were bound to by the ceasefire agreement of 1991? If so, NOTHING SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND. NOTHING. Not one experiment, not one dual purpose chemical, lag, equipment, scientist working on a related project, and the only documents should have been records of destruction of all this material. Instead, it’s record and prooof of ongoing activity, attemps to develop, buy, deceive and preserve the capability to reconstitute their program. KAYS REPORT He didn’t say that he found the car keys Saddam lost, he found dozens of WMD related activities. WMD relaterd material again in a country that shouldn’t have anything. Take home work again. A deadly virus. Nothing sinister going on there? Gee, thought they had given up on development of WMD? But Saddam wasn’t trying to get nukes like the US said. Why would he be interested in this? A delivery system for what? Flowers? Candy? Why? They had no WMD or RELATED MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES, why would they not declare that to the UN? Oh, ‘don’t declare this to the UN It’s perfectly legal but whatever you do, don’t let the UN know.’ But I thought they wern’t allowed to have missiles capable to reach over 150 km? Why would they try to get stuff that the UN said they were not allowed to have and that nullify the ‘91 ceasefire? [Now that I have spoon fed you the argument, could you please dig up the applicable resolutions that nullified these ones and thereby made this action by the US illegal?

Seems you forget the Cretien government, and pretty much all others. Tell me that Ann McClellan was telling us the truth when she said Sars was under control, that the HRDC was not mismanagement, the Cretien was skiing when he should have been at a state funeral when he was actually getting cancer treatment at the Mayo. And who can ever forget our soldiers working with the Americans in Afganistan and Iraq and we were told not one was. ow about Chirac getting direct bribes from Saddam to his campaign coffers, the UN food for oil fiasco? Take off your rose coulored galsses Lonius, you see only America as a sinner when the whole world awaits your wise condemnations. And then, tired of that, you can move onto some really nasty third world places. Sometimes they lie too.