bradco

There's (or there should be) also a consideration of what constitutes reasonable force to achieve the goals of the resolution. This is always the case with the authorities in civilized countries and I don't see why it should be different on the internation scene. Even if one has the authority to use force, it should be in proportion to the offence and the goals. In an individual oversteps the limits of authority or reasonable defence, they can be criminally liable. The same argument logically applies to countries, and whether it's written in any paperwork or not, any reasonbly thinking human understands what's happening. "All necessary means" authorizes any force needed to achieve the goals stated in the resolution. It would be very difficult for the SC to put in writing before any intervention exactly what is proportional. Doing so could handicap the troops that intervene to up hold up the SC resolution. There is no way to know exactly what sort of military opposition they will meet, how events will unfold etc. Armed conflict is dynamic, things change quickly and there is no time to consult the SC's opinion during it. That being said international laws and norms on how armed conflict ought to be conducted still apply to the force authorized by the SC

I've noticed that the propensity for blanket statements here, by the left and right is quite normal, accepted even. Clearly racist statements are accepted as fact...... I'm sure if we look hard enough yoiu will find muslim leaders who support suicide bombings....and you will also find christian leaders who support direct action against clinics. But the clear indictaion by such blanket statements is that ALL MUSLIM LEADERS SUPPORT....yadda yadda yadda...... ....which without doubt is 100% unadulterated bullshit...... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4556619.stm http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163075,00.html http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....;archived=False So now you not only have no problem with suicide attacks against civilians, but you also believe the drivel that is being fed to you by militant muslim leaders who have obviously learned in great detail how to manipulate the western squeemishness and knee-jerk poli-correctness to their advantage. You really should just convert. Unless you can show where I stated that I support suicide attacks, I will naturally assume you are ignorant and a liar. As to your second statement, wihich is be default worthless, I invite you to prove the men quoted as agiants suicide terrorism are "militants" then to attempt to explain why "militants" would be admonishing their flocks against suicide attacks...... ...I would say I look forward to the attempt, but so far your posts replace sensationalism for thought.... Dancer there is no point arguing with this guy. Theyre all extremists but if a few arent theyre only trying to manipulate us. Its rubbish, any half intelligent 4 year old could tell you that much. To your natural assumption that he is ignorant and a liar Id like to add racist as well which can easily be drawn from his numerous posts against Muslims.

Now I really don't know exactly know what you mean, when you make a statement like this. Is this supposed to be a good thing or bad thing? In Canada most Canadians cannot even define what constitutes a Canadian. But can you blame them, as the Liberals for years have been trying hard to separate the important factors that make Canadians nationalistic and patriotic. If the Americans are affluent as well as religious, explains why Americans are so nationalistic and patriotic compared to Canadians. Then what is it the important factor Canadians are lacking compared to Americans? That important factor is 'Christian nationalism' something the Liberals have been trying to bury in Canada. But notice, it is perfectly acceptable to allow Quebec to be an extremely nationalistic province. But rather then Christianity, the premise now in Quebec to account for this strong sense of nationalism, is based on language and culture, an extremely divisive component when trying to harmonize the Canadian masses to work together. Canada and the U.S. have evolved utilizing the same solid 'base' being Christianity to spiritualize the country that has worked hand in hand with past governments to create a great civilized, advanced country. Unfortunately to-day Canada is lost and struggling with a major identity problem due to the loss of 'Christian nationalism' and replaced with floundering, troublesome 'official multiculturalism' which is a poor excuse to create a strong nationalistic sense of pride and along with a unified patriotic attachment to Canada. Be critical of the U.S. all you want, but the fact is they are leaps and bounds ahead of Canada concerning nationalism and patriotism something Canada tries to mimic with 'devastating to unity' and 'divisive' multiculturalism which robs a nation of a single unified force and weakens the national mind. "Be critical of the U.S. all you want, but the fact is they are leaps and bounds ahead of Canada concerning nationalism and patriotism something Canada tries to mimic with 'devastating to unity' and 'divisive' multiculturalism which robs a nation of a single unified force and weakens the national mind." Knew an American who considered Canadians to be incredibly patriotic. Her point was that when you come up here you see the maple leaf and canadian branded on pretty much everything. Many Canadians including myself are very patriotic towards their country. Multiculturalism only makes me more proud of my country. Sure we have difficulties but you look at the other places of the world where they tried to tie together so many distinct groups it usually ended up in war. Canada is the great experiment and Im proud that it works at least a little and we can be an example to the rest of the world. The planets smaller and you cant turn back globalization. Best to try to learn to live together...even within those artifical lines drawn on the globe. Your rants seem to always center around your dismay that you dont live in a Christian dominated society. Im truly sorry you cant feel included in Canadian society. And Im truly sorry the only way you feel you can be included is by excluding others or forcing them to follow your beliefs.

Care to source examples. I bet guys named Mohammed get a hell of a lot more screaning at airports than grandma Jones. You care to drop your crusade against muslims that you seem to have. I know plently of Muslim people and they are all moderate, kind people. In fact I wouldnt be able to think of one who is not. At the same time I can think of numerous white Christians I know who are somewhat fanatical. I find your implicit racism a little tiring and it makes me feel shitty about my fellow citizens.

Again I am utterly shocked that people dont believe human actions could effect the global environment. Head down to your local university and talk to professors that dont have agendas (besides the pursuit of knowledge in science) and see how many believe humans have caused, at least in part, global warming. Not having any science knowledge besides a little first year physical geography Im not going to try and explain any of the technical science cause I know Im fairly ignorant on that part of it. "There have been proven climate changes in the past and they have been much larger in nature then we see today. But there were no industrial pollution back then, so why did this happen. We have seen eveidence of the cyclical nature of these events and that we ore over due for one now. So can anyone say with certainty that we are the main cause of what is happening today, or are we just a tiny portion of the cause." -I believe they point to the speed of the increases in temperature. Climate shifts are supposed to take thousands of years not a century. The increases in the speed of temperature hikes correlates with the increase of CO2 emissions due to our industrialization.

This is not a moral argument rather, a legal one and therefore cannot be decided by any other than those qualified to determine it. Orders of the UNSC superceede any charter as that is what it is designed to do - sort out irregularities that occur minute to minute day to day that the charter does not deal with. Basicly, the buck stops there. As for ambiguity, yes there certainly is. So, the US it seems along with their coalition are innocent until proven guilty. In other words, legal until proven illegal. I have had this argument on at least five different forums over the past three years and lost never. Reason is that I always state my position as in order to prove it illegal, first it must be proved to be not legal. Whereas all I have to do is to maintain the staus quo which by the way, only the UNSC can change in a determination. As you know, they have not even tabled the matter nor are they likely to ever. So, you can hypothisize all you want, find all sorts of pony tailed civil rights left wing lawyers who thnk it is illegal to trap off about it but, in the meantime, the matter is not illegal and, because of that, remains legal even if it might be, should be or even IS illegal unless the UNSC determines it. [qauote] But are those consequences automatic or is another resolution necessary? The resolution ends by saying that the "Security Council remains seized of the matter". I interpret that in the context of the rest of the resolution as the French saying after all the US/UK tough talk in the resolution that another resolution is needed. Not part of the resolution but also relevant is what happened when1441 was announced in the SC. Each member after voting annonunced that this resolution does not allow for any "automaticity". I think its pretty clear what that means but it is complicated by the fact you will not find the word automaticity in any dictionary. Ya ya and then when they all went down to the bar after for Miller Time the US ambassador says he thinks Iraq is a great country and it would be illegal for them to invade without a second resolution. Needs to be in the resolution, not in a side note as a protest. So it seems, maybe they should have made a better resolution. Like making a law so people can understand it and follow it the way it was intended to do rather than allow people to get through legal loopholes and such. Im not going to argue that it was illegal cause the whole resolution was a joke.....it was a document full of ridiculous political compromises between the French/Russians and UK/US. Which has been the point I have put forth this whole thread. "So it seems, maybe they should have made a better resolution." unfortunatly first and foremost the SC is a political body, not a legal one, and this can be incredibly difficult as 1441 illustrates. The one thing this war will result in is tighter resolutions. again the legality of an issue doesnt rest solely on SC declarations. Legality of the issue is determined by all sorts of treaties and customary laws. SC resolutions, through their status in the UN Charter, may override other treaties. However false interpretation of a SC resolution is illegal. The problem is there is not court to plead a case to (the SC does not serve this function as much as you might want to argue it does). The defining of the legality of an SC interpretation is left to the reactions of states towards it. In this case there was no strong argument put forth by a large amount of states leaving the legal question undebated and therefore the US/UK innocent. This wasnt from a lack of evidence but more a pragmatic response by countries who interpreted US/UK actions as illegal. Pushing their legal case could have dismantled the SC altogether which would reduce their security and power. Anyone who reads 1441 without an agenda is bound to come to the conclusion that it doesn't automatically allow for force. It can be read that it does. There is no court to decide and there is nothing to be gained for any state to push the legal issues of the Iraq War. Because of this the US/UK are "innocent" because not proven guilty. "Needs to be in the resolution, not in a side note as a protest." some may interpret these statements, made as part of the presentation of the resolution, as a verbal agreement/contract. Either way I will have the opportunity to meet with the British Ambassdor to the UN in february and fully intend on asking him to define "automaticity"....should be entertainging if nothing else to hear his response. "So, you can hypothisize all you want, find all sorts of pony tailed civil rights left wing lawyers who thnk it is illegal" for the record theres actually an incredible amount of very good international lawyers who believe it was illegal....and theres also a lot on the other side....notably ones paid by the US and British governments that would argue the other side

Does it really matter? Did the fact the actions of the SS and Gestapo were not typical of those of the average Wehrmacht soldier make the defeat of NAZI Germany any less necessary? You are trying to apply western niceties to somewhere they have no business. Just because people who carry out terrorist acts also engage in what might be considered legitimate warfare doesn't make them any less terrorists. Im not arguing that it doesnt make them less terrorists. My argument for distinguishing between their terrorist acts and their "legitimate" (although largely illegal) warfare is to not confuse certain acts and use words for political pruposes. When someone brands something terrorism it carries a lot with it by conjuring up visions of 9/11 and the emotional baggage we all have from that horrible event. When theres no clear distinction between legitimate warfare and terrorism it is a lot easier for certain western politicans to mobilize opinion behind a mission through playing to peoples emotions.

Unfortunately when they don't wear uniforms or fight as a regular army it is difficult if not impossible to tell the difference. If the Taliban claim responsibility for actions that are unquestionably "terrorist", they must accept the fact they will all wear that label unless those who are not do something convincing to distance themselves from those acts. But the media and governments should not label and refer to specific attacks as terrorist attacks if they are committed against military personnel. To do otherwise is dishonest and in my opinion being done for political reasons.

All is nice and simple in the binary world, but if it were so in the real life we wouldn't bother with triffles like reasonable defence, rules, procedures and SIU investigations. Every time the police had to make an arrest, they'd just blow the place apart and comfort those who survived with accounts of how wicked and worthy of punishment the removed criminal used to be. Now what we have your word for it, I can indeed go to sleep in peace. The original resolutions obviously authorize the use of force....thats understood by everyone and is not the point. 1441 refers back to those resolutions....understood by everyone. The legal question is whether or not another resolution after 1441 was needed...whether or not authroization of force was automatic. Since the resolution said the "SC would remain seized of the matter" and that all the SC ambassodors (all 15) on adoption of the resolution publicly stated it did not allow for any "automaticity" its tough to argue that another resolution wasnt needed.

Yes well it's been well established how selective your memory can be. http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900S...nt&RSS20=02 http://www.w4wafghan.ca/fundraising/breaki...oolTorched.html Yeah that doesn't sound like terrorism at all. You guys are idiots. Really no other word for it. An open mind and 30 seconds research would show you all you need to know but you're all to dishonest or stupid for that. Take your pick. The responses to this are going to keep me on the edge of my seat. I really can't wait to see what people come up with next. What bizarre rationales will we use to smother this story? "Oh well they didn't know those girls were in the school", "Oh well you know: a school can be a military target too.", or how about the ol' "Oh this is just the CIA dressed as Taliban to give those nice guys a bad name" . No those are clearly acts of terrorism, I agree. As I said anything that is directly targeting civilians should be considered terrorism. Thanks for the examples. I can admit when Im wrong. No need to be so nasty by the way. Before your post I clearly stated "If you provide an example where the civilians are the clear target than I will agree"...thats hardly sitting here with a clsosed mind or denying anything I stand by my argument that there is still a need to clarify and use properly the term terrorist though. Too automatically lump anyone who fights against the "west" as a terrorist is wrong. Some attacks by the Taliban, as listed by Killjoy, are terrorist attacks. But not all of them are. When the Taliban target military personnel it shouldnt be considered terrorism but a lot of people jump to refering to them as terrorist attacks. Thats my main point....in both Iraq and Afghansitan attacks are defined as terrorist attacks which are NOT and should not be called terrorist attacks. Im just saying that people need an open mind and realize that the people our military fights in a war aren't automatically terrorists. To brand anyone a terrorist bastardizes the word and renders it meaningless so that we cant distinguish between soldiers attacking other military personnel and bastards attacking schools. Once this occurs the word is nothing more than a tool used for rhetoric and propaganda. I could make a longer argument but Id rather refer people to Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language, since I could never put it as good as him the importance of "language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought."

Surely with that definition, the title terrorist easily applies to the Taliban. If you provide an example where the civilians are the clear target than I will agree. Otherwise refer to my post regarding Geoffreys example.

Your kidding right? http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/18/b...-canadians.html Attacking little children receiving toys and stuff from Canadian troops isn't terrorism? Its immoral, evil, bastardly, a war crime etc but if you want to have a clear cut definition of terrorism you might have to argue that it isnt terrorism. If this is "terrorism" than Israel is just as guilty of terrorism in the recent conflict in Southern Lebanon, the US is just as guilty of terrorism in Iraq because I bet they killed a heck of lot more children than this one bomber did (theres just more disconnection with the killings when you use a missile from miles away....the civilian bloodbath is the same). We need a clear definiton or anything and anyone (Israel, US) can be defined as terrorists. Having a clear definiton of terrorism, direct attacks on civilians (for example 9/11), doesnt excuse any actions of the Taliban. They are still very guilty of war crimes etc. Just maybe war criminals, not terrorists.

I have problems with the argument of giving the Taliban a role in government. If they have popular support amongst a certain percentage then maybe they deserve a few seats to reresent that. The problem is I have doubts that this group would be content with a few seats. If we give them a chance to be a legitmate political party will we be back there in 5 years after they have taken over again and invited Al Qaida back? They have to be willing to put the guns down as well...it has to be a two way street. They have given no indication they would be willing to do so and enter into civilized negotiations. If we cave and sue them for peace they will probably see it as a victory and reason to continue their ways. ...Terrorist seems to be a pretty bastardized word. Who is a terrorist and who isn't? Are the Taliban considered terrorists. They were the governing party of a state (not democratic....is undemocratic = terrorism?) I would agree that Al Qaida was a terrorist group but we should distinguish between them and the Taliban and it seems they are thought as in this thread as the same entity. Is a suicide bomber a terrorist if he targets military personnel? Its a different weapon but is it any different then when one of our soldiers shoots a Taliban fighter? I would certainly say our fighters are not terrorists. Is targeting military personnel without enough consideration of civilians terrorism? Then Israel, United States, Germany, UK...pretty much every country on the planet has been involved in terrorism at one one point or another. For me terrorism is the direct targeting of civilians and therefore it isnt clear that the Taliban are terrorists.

I voted to continue to buy them off.... If we don't want them to have nuclear weapons than we ought to give them something in return. Anything else will only breed more hatred of the west in the Middle East. Israel, the P5, India and Pakistan don't have much of a right at all to say who can and who can not have nuclear weapons. If Isreal is allowed one as a deterrant (which I support) than why shouldnt Iran be allowed one as a deterrant. They have even more powerful countries as enemies. Double standards are only going to inflame the situation between the west and the middle east. The real questions is what will be the consequences when Israel attacks Iran if we cant buy them off or we dont try....cause there is no way Israel is going to let them arm.

Well good to hear its not a prevalent problem....I did find it pretty shocking and was quite pissed off about it. And ya these guys were anything but "gangster"....just typical engineering students. Didnt even say a word to the bouncer. First place was Tequilas i think (on 17th av)....and then Cowboys let them in and in response to people getting all upset by my comment on linking racism and conservatism...umm i thought the little symbol made it clear i was just jokin/being sarcastic.....little tongue in cheek. I apologize if I didnt make that clear enough. If I did and your responding just cause you dont like the joke than just relax. Cowboys won't be a problem. You didn't miss much by skipping out on Tequila. If they aren't dressing like gangsters or acting like it, I really don't find there's much of an issue with it. Like I said, I see plenty of Asians in the bars and clubs so I don't think it's a blanket racism policy. I'm sure lots of white guys get turned away as well, just it doesn't have the shock factor to make the news. I agree that lots of white guys probably get turned away to from what I hear about Calgary clubs from guys I know who lives there. The problem was they turned them away using reasons that should have meant the three of us who did get in should not have.

What do we know about the staffs of other ministers? What did we know about the staff of Liberal cabinet ministers? Nothing. It's never been an issue. These are political staffs headed up by party insiders. No one, so far as I can remember, has ever raised the issue of the political views of a chief of staff to a minister before. So he's opposed to SSM? So what? Half the Tory party is. Why raise it unless it's part of a Liberal effort to again portray the Tories as scary, and, not incidentally, to try and portray being against SSM as somehow illigitimate and unacceptable. As for views on climate change, well we don't really know them, but there is a lot of skepticism in the Tory party, so that wouldn't be entirely unusual either. If this is the best the Liberals can complain about then I'd say the tories are doing pretty good. Do you have a problem with the staffs of ministers being subjected to public scrutiny? Im not sure that its really a bad thing. These people have influence over important elected officials so I dont see anything wrong with their beliefs being subjected to public scrutiny. As far as Im concerned the more open anything in politics is the better. Isnt that something the conservatives were saying? "So he's opposed to SSM? So what? Half the Tory party is." -Isnt it way more than half? That was my point in my comment anyways. It will be incredibly difficult for the Conservatives to get a majority because so many of them are against SSM. In urban areas outside of the praries this is a major roadblock for them. "If this is the best the Liberals can complain about then I'd say the tories are doing pretty good." Doing good amongst their base who have the same social beliefs and views toward climate change. But there a lot of people who have strong beliefs that are incompatible with Tory views. These are, for the most part, the people in areas the Tories will need to gain support to win a majorty. Thats all I was trying to say in my comment.

Richmond being my riding I had the priviledge of receiving this guys campaign literature in the mail. Just happy he lost handidly....and I dislike Chan (liberal MP for Richmond). Either way his immoral and intolerant (my opinion) views are not really relevant to being a part of the staff for the minister of the environment. His inclusion with full knowledge of his beliefs does show why the Conservatives will have a real tough time getting a majority.

just some replies to a few comments... "I'm no lawyer, just explaining why the US is not on trial for illeagaly invading Iraq. When and if the UNSC meets and sombody tables the matter then it can be decided. Until then, it is not ileagal and can be considered legal unless of course, you are Michael Moore or somebody who wishes it to be without proof" Something is not illegal only if the SC tables a motion and argues that it is. Any violation of international treaties/customary law would be "illegal" and not dependant on the SC saying that they are. In the case of 1441 there is significant ambiguity to make any legal case against the States impossible which I have argued was the purpose of the resolution. "It (1441 which is the one I posted) is not the origional Resolution but rather the final one in which Iraq is offered one last chance to come clean or face the consequenses" But are those consequences automatic or is another resolution necessary? The resolution ends by saying that the "Security Council remains seized of the matter". I interpret that in the context of the rest of the resolution as the French saying after all the US/UK tough talk in the resolution that another resolution is needed. Not part of the resolution but also relevant is what happened when1441 was announced in the SC. Each member after voting annonunced that this resolution does not allow for any "automaticity". I think its pretty clear what that means but it is complicated by the fact you will not find the word automaticity in any dictionary. "After Iraq war I'll be surprised to see the SC (if it remains in its current state) making any significant impact for a long time, its recent record (Lebanon, Iran, Darfour) confirms that." I encourage you to read the most recent resolutions regarding Darfur. Especially the one that came out around the end of august (dont know the number off hand but its not to hard to find on UN website). It clearly authorizes use of force...explicitly stating that the SC is acting under chapter seven and authorizes the use of all necessary means. As far as SC resolutions go its about as clear a resolution you could ask for. Any state that wants to intervene in Darfur is legally able to, period. A few weeks ago Senator Dallaire wrote an aritcle in the Globe arguing that Canada had to lead the mission backed by this resolution to stop the genocide in Darfur. His arguement was that the politics and muslim populations in the area made it impossible for US or any permanent member to be invovled. A more neutral, middle power like Canada had to take the lead. I encourage people to read the resolution and write to their MP's if they strongly feel Canada needs to assert an important role in international efforts at securing peace for people who are suffering as much as those in Darfur. The SC has done its job its up to the members of the UN now to make a difference. The SC also has some resolutions on Lebanon in the last few weeks authorizing a very robust peacekeeping mission Im told but havent read them myself. The Iraq war hasnt ended the significance of the SC which is illustrated by its clear authorization of force in the case of Darfur. What I think we will see though are more legally tight resolutions that avoid ambiguity. The politics of the Iraq war forced an intentionally ambiguous resolution to ensure the SC would last. This proves the SC is capable of adapting to situations to ensure its existance so it can have an impact in the future. "I suspect he had the WMD's but moved them, likely to the other Ba'ath republic, Syria, on the even of the invasion" Ive also suspected this as a possibility. I think it is fairly clear he didnt have nuclear weapons though but likely chemical or biological. I think such transfers of weapons would have been very difficult during inspections, unless it was done before. On the eve of the invasion may have been difficult with the US probably watching eveything real close.

Well good to hear its not a prevalent problem....I did find it pretty shocking and was quite pissed off about it. And ya these guys were anything but "gangster"....just typical engineering students. Didnt even say a word to the bouncer. First place was Tequilas i think (on 17th av)....and then Cowboys let them in and in response to people getting all upset by my comment on linking racism and conservatism...umm i thought the little symbol made it clear i was just jokin/being sarcastic.....little tongue in cheek. I apologize if I didnt make that clear enough. If I did and your responding just cause you dont like the joke than just relax.

Assuming what you say is true I'd bet it has something to do with crime among young Asian men. "Assuming what you say is true" Yes I routinely make up stories for no reason "crime among young Asian men" Yes cause only young Asian men commit crime. Lets all get together and head down to a club one night and see what race gets in the most fights....I bet it isnt the Asians

So I was visiting Calgary over the weekend... I head out to some clubs with a friend and some guys he knows from work (3 of us white and 2 asian guys) First club we go to they let the three of us who are white in no problem....then the two asian guys flash their ids and the bouncer says oh your from out of province you need to show another id. So they flash another and then its oh your under 25 you cant get in. Interesting thing is the three of us who were white were also showing BC drivers licenses and we were also all under 25. In front of us was an asian guy with three white girls. All the girls got in and he didnt. Next club they were trying to pull the same shit. Only reason I think the two asian guys got in was a cop was standing right beside the bouncer....the asian guys were forced to show three pieces of photo id and we showed one. Anyone from Calgary know if tyhis happens a lot? What is going on in that city? Is racism and conservatism connected?

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/10/02/amish...ting/index.html It is only a matter of time before all hell breaks loose and non muslims kill us all.....do we need go over the facts yet again? How many more school shootings by non muslims will it Take before we act? Non Muslim Sparks terror Non Muslim kills wife and kids haha awesome post I bet it wont be long until the racist right blames muslim influence for these events

I think whats more important then did we get the better of the deal is whether or not we got the best deal we were going to. Lets face it the US has the military and economic power to back up their bullying. Winning NAFTA rulings means we have a chip to bargain with, it doesnt mean we are going to get our way. We got 80% of the tariffs back and a secure and stable market in the US. Thats the best deal we could possibly get and we should be happy with it and move on. We wont get anything else out of the states so it is best to take this. If we were to say no they would continue with collecting tariffs, I'm sure the US government wouldnt mind collecting a few billion more from our producers. In the long run we would eventually take a negoiated settlement and would lose even more tariffs to the US. The worst thing we could do is follow Taliban Jacks idea of starting a trade war with the Americans. The relative costs of closure of trade are much higher for Canada than for the US. Thats the ultimate bargaining chip and it beats out NAFTA rulings every time. Everything considered I think the settlement is decent but I am not sure of any Canadian companies views towards the share of the US market they get. If anyone has information on this that would be great.

What is a "crime against humanity". This is a term which has been flung about quite a lot of late, in particular with regard to Israel's action in Lebanon. And I have to say that if that is considered a "Crime against humanity" then the term has been so bastardized that it can no longer be used with any practicality to punish anyone for anything. So yes, if what Israel did constituted, in your eyes, a "Crime against Humanity" then democratic leaders can be "guilty" of it, but I would not want them prosecuted under that interpretation. There is a big difference to what "crimes against humanity" means when it is "bastardized" by politicians/media/NGO's and everyone else and what the legal definition is (as defined by treaties, customary international law maybe it gets a little murkier) as far as the ICC is concerned a crime against humanity would be: means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack[6]: (a) Murder; ( Extermination; © Enslavement; (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; (f) Torture; (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; (i) Enforced disappearance of persons; (j) The crime of apartheid; (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. In the case of Isreal they would be potentially guilty of such crimes if their actions in Lebanon were considered illegal. Although a right of self-defence is allowed (and defined differently in international law than domestic law, that is it is a little more loose in int'l law) it is generally accepted that it must meet the Caroline requirements of necessity and proportionallity (which actually originate in a dispute involving the US which helps define this customary law). I would argue that Isreal's response was absolutly necessary but proportional might be a different story.

Comparing the success of wars to Vietnam? Just because Iraq isn't as bad as Vietnam doesn't make it good, or not bad. Iraq was completely unnecessary, other wars in history have been necessary.