Black Dog

Uh...dumbass? You said the phrase ‘all necessary means’ was used in 1441, implying that it was a new reference, when it fac t (by your own admission) the text of 144 1was "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means..." Which means 1441 did not specifically authorize force, but recalled a specific resolution that did. And I don't see the use of force mandated in 1441 either. Is that a side story of some kind. In any case: Statement in Explanation of Vote by Sergei Lavrov, Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN, on the Security Council's Resolution on Iraq Huh? Let's see your opinions and interpretations trump the one's I've put forward (authored by legal experts; I'm not sure what your authority is) because...you say so? So, because no one opted (for whatever reason) to hold the U.S. accountable for its actions (actions that it would have gone ahead with regardless), then it becomes okay for it to do so? I'm pleased to see you taking such a principled stand. Gotta come back to this...

No. That was a citation of the text of 678. Then why did China France and Russia all state that their endorsement of 1441 was contingent on the fact it did not automatically authorize the use of force? So by your logic then, a murder is only a murder if the perpatrator is caught and charged. If you happen to get away with it, then you've done nothing wrong. Awesome.

Either Bev goes or Jack goes.

Coming from someone who still believes in WMD (and possibly, Santa), that's a laff. In any case, I'm not a conspiracy theorist (whatever that means), nor do I think that I'm wrong for not breathlessly regurgitating the latest White House talking points. Losing the Peace in Afghanistan: a Human Rights watch report Kinda like how Bush and friends talked about Saddam gassing his own people without mentioning the fact that the U.S. was cool with it at the time, eh?

The SC said that by failing to appeal a number of lower court rulings that said excluding gays from marriage was discriminatory, the federal government had already accepted the position that the curent definition of marriage contravened the Charter.

IMR, how is saying: "the U.S. trained the mujahedden, which became Al Qaeda, which carried out the 9-11 attacks" (which was what Glick was trying to get across before he was shouted down) "blaming Americans"? The word "blame" implies an element of calculation and responsibility which no one believes was present in the U.S. policy decisions that led to 9-11. Well, first you have to prove that the left-wing bias in the rest of the American media actually exists and is not, as prominent conservative William Kristol said "an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.” It's interesting too that I've highlghted dozens of examples of Fox's bias in this thread and others, but evidence of a overt and deliberate bias by the CBC has been few and far between. I guess we're to take it as an article of faith? In any case, your argument is weak because attacking the CBC does not disprove any of the points against FOX.

Wrong. Since 660 simply stated then the anlysis by the Australian law professors Hilary Charlesworth and Andrew Byrnes who authored the piece I linked to is correct. Here's an additional opinion: Legality of war on Iraq In other words, your interpretation that 678 authorized the use of force (in perpetuity?) is wrong. If such were the case, then 1441 would have been completely uneccesary. I think the simple fact that the U.S. and UK did not use your argument in trying to obtain support for the invasion speaks to the invalidity of your position. That's not to say they didn't try. In 1998, during the crisis over inspections, a majority of the Security Council disagreed with the U.S. position and argued that no existing Security Council resolution authorized the U.S., Britain, or any other member state to enforce Iraq's disarmament obligations imposed by Resolution 687. A majority of the Security Council have argued that it is up to the Security Council as a whole, and not individual states, to decide how to enforce resolutions. That's why 1441 was put forward, but even that resolution did not explicitly authorize the use of force.

The point people keep missing in this debate is hat here are only two options available to the feds. 1) Legalize gay marriage. 2) Use the "notwithstanding" clause, in which case they have to do the whole thing over again in five years. That's it. Civil unions are out because the federal government has jurisdiction over the definition of marriage. It can change this definition unilaterally because the definition of marriage is within its power.The federal government cannot legislate on civil unions because provincial governments have jurisdiction over non-marital unions.

Nothing. And everything. The story was about Fox News coming to Canada and concerns that it is biased and a negative influence on the media environment. To back that thesis, it included examples of bias, including hypocrisy such as that exhibited by Fox personality O'Reilly and Fox apologist Marsden.

Ah, the right wing propaganda machine spins away. I'm not humbled. It's one thing to cast a ballot in a flawed election (let's not forget Iraqis were voting for party lists, not individual candidates and that there were reports from Iraqi bloggers that there were threats that food rations woukld be witheld from people who didn't vote) held under military occupation, it's another thing for that vote to translate into anything meaningful. Afghanistan is a good example. There Afghanis voted in Karazi, the U.S. handpicked interim president over a slate of unknowns. Karazi, meanwhile, has little authority over the country outside Kabul. Iraq, Afghanistan and sham elections Vote for food. Baghdad Burning Well, the mainstream media hasn't said much about Afghanistan since the U.S. attacked Iraq, barring a few election puff pieces. Most, of course, don't bother with the very pertinent facts (as reported by NGOs on the ground in Afghanistan) that the situation in most of the country is no better and often worse, than it was under the Taliban. It doesn't fit the narrative that "freedom is on the march", so it's chucked down the memory hole.

..but moreso if they disagree with him. No he didn't. Transcript. Only once in three weeks? Gosh, the man's a saint. Split hairs much? Let's look at what hese individuals (one a conivted stalker and the other an alleged sex pervert) said about Slick Willy's indiscretions. The second a public figure criticizes or makes a judgement on another public figure's personal life, then the accusser's own personal history is fair game. In Marsden and O'Reilly's cases, it makes them hypocrites.

Who the hell smokes 15 joints a day?

Picking the easy fights then, eh KK? ...which is pretty much all you've done too, since, as I pointed out earlier. 1441 was passed only with the understanding of certain members that it did not authorize the use of force, a view the resolutions sponsors agreed with. So the war was waged without the support of the international community. It was a de facto unilateral act of aggression.

...provided they agree with him. I doubt he ever shouts down the likes of Ann Coulter. So what's unfair about showing O'Reilly as O'Reilly is? So you reckon the son of the 9-11 victim who O'Reilly famoulsly shouted down had it coming for disagreeing with O'Reilly? Gee, I don't hear you mounting the same criticisms of O'Reilly and FoxNew's unfair and innaccurate reportage...

That's been my point all along. Democracy in Iraq will survive so long as it serve American interests. Those interests (such as strategic control of the oil supply and a regional power base) trump any reform. Well, for starters, not propping up corrupt regimes in terrorist states like Saudi Arabia would be a good start. Withdrawing support from these regimes would force them to stand on their own feet. In many cases, without that support, the regimes would fall to domestic forces. This would also remove one of the main griveances of terror groups like Al Qaeda. However, it's worth noting that radical militant Islam became the dominant idealogicval opposition in the region after the secular Arab nationalism of the 50's and 60's was squelched by the west in the interests of maintaining access to the region's resources.

Dejarlaise should be kicked out of the NDP caucus. If you don't support basic equality rights, you've no business being a NDP member. I've asked before and got no response, so I'll try again: why should the majority get to decide what rights minorities are entitled to? I just read some stats that showed that mixed race marriages were once illegal and, if left to the will of the majority, would still be today.

If clips of Bill O'Reilly shouting "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!" show him in an unfavourable light, then its Bill O'Reilly who's to blame. His track record of bullying guests and distroting facts has been widely noted. That was in context of questions regarding the glaring hypocricy of right wing commentators (liek Marsden and O'Reill) to attack politicians (ie. Clinton) on personal grounds when their own personal lives are less than savoury. If the sexual prolicivities of Bill Clinton are fair game for Fox, then surely the same can be said of its talking heads.

One of our own August's favorite catch phrases is "the left confuses symbols for reality." Of course, such confusion is not limited soley to the left side of the spectrum as all the hoo-hah over the Iraqi election demonstrates, as people across the board trip over themselves to crow over the "triumph of democracy in Iraq". Well, the election, while an important step for Iraqis, is a symbol. What remains to be seen if Iraqis can overcome ethnic divisions and military opccupation to craft a viable democratic state. "Demonstration elections" are an easy sop to democracts, creating the illussion of democracy even as the elctions themselves are managed (South Vietnam had very successful elections as well, but there was never much doubt who was really calling the shots). But how did they get their numbers so quickly and why were initial estimates revised so fast? Strawman argument. Hmm....Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, the Gulf Emirates are all U.S. client states and utterly undemocratic. Egypt is ruled by a military dictatorship backed by the U.S, a sis Pakistan. It seems to me, given how many of these "terrorist" states have ties to the U.S.A, that if promoting democracy in the Mid Eastwas the real goal, surely it could have been accomplished in a way that didn't destroy a country, kill thousands of its citizens, and stoke the fires of anti-western sentiment and terrorism. Illegal war.

No explanation of where they got those figures seeing as how the votes weren't counted yet. Perhaps they just took the Shiite and Kurd numbers and extrapolated? So can we expect further revisions? "No one's gonna buy 72 per cent. How's about 55?" "Naw, too low. Freedom's on the march, remember?" "Okay: how about 60 per cent?" "Beautiful. Go with it."

Examples? American companies did a booming business with the Nazis prior to (and in some cases, after) America's entry into the war (IBM, DuPont, GM, being prime examples).

Re WaPo: columnist Courtland Milloy admitted he was racially biased according to a test developed by a Harvard psychologist to detect hidden, deep-seated, "implicit" bias (th epoint being that everyone who took it was biased). And I've never forgiven the NYT for not sacking Judith Miller, the fraudster who breathlessly parroted the Bush admin's false Iraq WMD charges. So you see, I never said I accept the views of these outlets as gospel, nor do I treat these sources (which, as I pointed out, are but a few of many that I look to) as unimpeachable. The most interesting thing about CBC's FoxNews expose was the study which revealed the increased likliehood that FoxNews watchers harbour false impression about teh Iraq war and 9-11 (as showcased by campus radio host Marsden's floundering). By the way, as I've done you the courtesy of answering your question, why not answer mine:

No...really? Why you think this is a leftist thing is beyond me: you're talking Advertising 101 (kinda like how George W. was percieved as a stong leader for standing on a pile of rubble and yelling into a bullhorn.) Of course it matters. And yes, they are. How about allowing nature to exist for its own sake. Why must everything be about rape and pillage? This attitude is precisely why the planet's going to shit and human society with it. Are you so ful of huibris that you belive man kind is above nature or that natur is ours to dispose of simply becaus ewe have the means to do so? Humankind has lost its connection with the natural world and I have a hard time understanding how this can be a good thing.

And why are they uncomfortable? Ah. So, while B.Max has proven himself to be a frothing at the mouth hate pustule, his lunatic rant raises an interesting question for board members: some of the resident righties and centre-righties here are verrrry quick to jump on anyone who states the anti-SSM crowd is motivated by fear, ignorance, bigotry and hate. Yet here is a shining example of hate in action and the silence is deafening. Why are you giving the haters a pass?

I tend to steer clear of TV news, as the format doesn't lend itself to real anysis, but McNews. I like the online editions of UK papers the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post. I also scour blogs for links and articles from across the world. Incidentally I caught the tail end of the rebroadcast of the Fifth Estate in question. Not enough to really coment on but enough to chuckle at Ann Coulter and Marsden getting schooled. So in other words, they didn't actually do anything to dispute or contradict the CBC's position on FoxNews's bias.

No, I'm saying we can get a more accurate picture of the Bush administratons motivations from their policies and how they put them into effect than we can from their rhetoric on the tee-vee. Dig?