bradco

No. Two of those resolutions were tabled during his terms. The condemnation was during his fathers term. You are right though in that "my argument isnt back up by pure facts and is weak in that respect but is based on logical hypothesis." Good for you. Really? So, in ordeer to make this actin illegal we have to move into the tin oil hat club with you. OK, I'll work with you, just as long as I get to bring out fantasy role playing and call it an argument too. Do you base anything on fact or is this simply an emotional thing for you? Frances power plays against the US Yes indeed, they have a lot to lose. So much they worked against the US in the UNSC, EU and independently. Why the French made sure that 1441 was a mandate for the US to act legally by invading Iraq? Simple. They never thought the US would actually act. So, I take it you have finished the actual legal argument and now agree that it is by default legal? The legal argument has hit an inevitable stalemate because there are legitmate arguments on both sides. That was the purpose of the resolution in my opinion. Neither side is supposed to be able to win. You will argue that makes it default legal and I say no that makes it unconvicted. You will refuse to recognize that conviction is a separate issue than legality. And magically we're still stalemated and Im tiring of hitting my head against the wall and imagine you are as well. So lets agree to disagree on our legal interpretations and recognize that conviction is impossible.

QUOTE(bradco @ Oct 11 2006, 03:10 AM) Although Id prefer that North Korea didnt have nuclear weapons (obviously) I dont exactly blame them. If you were publicly insulted by another world leader then placed under the "axis of evil" wouldnt you be getting a little worried (especially with another member of the axis being invaded). August1991 Are you a fool? Have you ever discussed life with a Hell's Angel? What world do you live in? Did you vote Liberal? PQ? I prefer a civilized French Canadian world but I'll admit that Parizeau can speak of "lobsters" because of civilized English Canadians. And we Canadians can do as we do because of our neighbourly, civilized, democratic, strong Americans. But then, Canadians have historically responded faster than Americans to protect civilized debate. I honestly have no idea what your comment means. Do you actually think North Korea does not have legitimate security concerns? All nations have security concerns. Just because we dont like the guy or his regime doesnt mean he doesnt have the right to be concerned about his own life and regime. Im just saying what he did was a fairly rational act considering the security threats he faced. If I was a brutal dictator in his shoes Id probably do the same thing. Thats not an endoresment of what he did, his regime or anything like that. Its only a realization that he was acting towards what he considered to be a legitmate threat to his security. Seeing that Im an IR major with a specialization in security studies I always like to consider the actions of even our enemies and understand why they do what they do. In this case our actions towards North Korea played a large role in motivating him to do what he did.

There have been many documented examples linked to on this board showing religious groups or people being forced to rent halls or warned about their charity tax status bradco. I'm not going to list them again. Look them up if you care to be informed. Being aware of the situation and voting accordingly is the right thing to do, whatever side of an issue you come down on. Well Ive only been on this board about a month so I might not have caught all your documented examples. I vaguely remember the hall example but dont realy know the specifics. To me it depends on whether or not they choose to act as a business by renting it out. By choosing to act as a business you are taking on legal requirements, for example you cant discriminate. Forcing them to rent the hall to gay people wouldnt be an assault on their religous freedoms or institution. I would have less to do with their church and more to do with their business license. If a gay group owned a building and refused to rent it out to a Christian group you would be protesting against that. If they are not acting as a business then the courts will make the right decision, I have confidence in that. Im unaware of the chairty tax status. Churches shouldnt have charity tax status. They are private institutions and should pay their taxes like a gay advocacy group would be expected to pay theirs. If they are doing some sort of charity work then I think that part is fine and should be considered to be fine.

No true small l liberal would approve of churches being forced to marry people they dont wish to. Notice how the original bill did nothing of the sorts. Right wingers are so jittery.

hockey relegated to a miscellaneous forum on a Canadian message board? If anything it should get its own forum.

Well your assessment of me is wrong...for I do have had contacts with Muslim people. And we still maintain a sort of friendship with a couple who live quite far from us. Perhaps the reason I use the phrase "intimidation of all Muslims...." is the fact that somebody was already trying to bring in sharia law into Canada. True there is no such hospital in Canada....yet. Happenings in Europe is being mirrored elsewhere...so it's only natural to assume that if that hospital is approved and got going....Canada wouldn't be that far behind. If Liberals or NDP are heading the country, then it's almost a surety. You still have shown no realistic consequences that would come from having these hospitals if they abide by simple and reasonable rules that I outlined earlier in this thread. Bringing in sharia law is a separate issue. As far as your opinion that gays are trying to take a mile because we gave them an inch... up to the point they are trying to force churches to marry them who dont want to their actions are completely reasonable and therefore acceptable. There are few groups that actually believe that all churches should be forced to marry gays. Of course there will be some..... the gay community isnt immune from people who argue for restricting rights. The fact that anyone elses rights were never restricted by the gay community kind of blows apart your theory that the Muslim community will slowly implement religous law into Canadian society.

Well, I'm surrounded by Canadians too...I have witnessed (although more than 30 years ago) and I have heard and I do know of 2 woman abused by the same man....and two others, my neighbours, one which resulted in a 3AM emergency response by paramedics, fire and police. Now all of these women are WASPs with the exception of one, who is Israeli. The one thing you can say about spousal abuse, it doesn't discriminate. Exactly. That's why I am wondering how Brad can confidently say that just because he works for Muslims or had been around Muslims in Canada...that that kind of abuse is not happening to some hapless Muslim women in Canada? Okay thats not what you argued though. Of course some woman are opressed, so are some children and Im sure theres men being oppressed as well. Im arguing that it is no different in the Muslim community and will not result in any more forcing to use a hospital. Given your logic Id be concerned about Muslim woman who are oppressed now not receiving any medical attention at all. Are you concerned about this situation? A situation that their oppressors would only wish them to have treatment at a "Muslim hospital" so now they go untreated. your comment was, and I quote, "Have you considered the scenario that the whole Muslim population will be intimidated and forced by the radicals/extremists to use that kind of hospital?" I said that is not going to happen because the vast majority of muslims in a western democracy, where the hospital would be located, are not being opressed. Realizing how ridiculous your statement was you are now trying to backpeddle and accuse me of not realizing there is oppression. Of course there is oppression, that doesnt even need to be debated. Theres oppression in all communites. As Dancer put it, "it doesnt discriminate". However, there is defintely not oppression on a level that would result in "the whole Muslim population" being forced to use these hospitals. To backup your initial statements you would need to prove this. I suggest you do so or admit you were wrong instead of trying to backpeddle and accuse me of something I never said and is irrelevant to your argument anyways.

I was unaware the dems had plans to increase taxes and major terrorist attacks seem to be fading out along with Foley. I do wonder however, if the Republicans have something wonderous up their sleeve regarding the nuke attempt in North Korea. Or perhaps something else that will save us all from the evils of the rest of the world that they don't own or control. I dont really follow US elections all that closely (besides the presidential ones). I was wondering if the more informed on the subject could enlighten me on how the race is looking for the midterms. What are the chances, if any, the republicans could lose control of the house?

Holistic? Introduced next week? WTF? This gives me the impression he will bet targeting greenhouse gases at least in part? I would love for Harper to do this and admit implicitly that they cause a problem. He can join the likes of even Geroge Bush who according to Ambassador Wilkins takes climate change "very seriously" and to be something of "grave concern and importance". With such traditional foes of admitting climate change getting on the bandwagon I wonder how the rightists on this forum will respond.

I only ask for relevent facts for you to back up your arguments. Instead, you come up with hypothises and theory in a mini opinion column form. So, if they are that scared of the US then why did they make eight resolutions against it? You dance around that fact and still maintain that the UNSC would never condemn the Iraq Invasion out of fear. You do your argument no justice by repeatedly saying the UN is afraid of the US all the while they actively work against it when it suits them. So, if the only body able to determine if the invasion was illegal does not even show formal displeasure when we know it does to the USA on other matters all the time, , why would you, as a poster on a forum feel you have a point when you can't even back up your argument with fact? Yes my argument isnt back up by pure facts and is weak in that respect but is based on logical hypothesis. Your argument is not immune from weaknesses. You cite historical examples where the US has been condemned for its actions completely ignoring the context of the current situation. Historical examples dont automatically prove anything. Have to pay attention to context. Has anyone ever attempted to condemn George Bush's action at the SC? Are there reasons to suspect he may respond differently then other past US leaders? Have opinions about the UN and its usefulness changed among US leadership and population? Has American power changed, has the power of other members changed? There all sorts of variables that have to be considered as far as context goes. Citing what happened in the past doesn't prove all that much other than in the past they were able to table resolutions condemning the US without consequences. That doesnt necessarily mean there wouldnt be consequences in this context. The failure of those resolutions to do anything or amount for anything could be used as "proof" of the uselessness of bothering to table anything. facts I used in developing my hypothesis: "as a veto holding member it has power to shootdown any resolution" "The US has also asserted, under George Bush, that it has no problem ignoring multilateralism in what it decides is its best interests" -I would argue it is fact the US has the hard power to withdraw and end the SC's ability to fulfill its mandate "You do your argument no justice by repeatedly saying the UN is afraid of the US all the while they actively work against it when it suits them." -I didnt say the UN in general...I specificlly mentioned France as an example simply cause they have alot to lose. -They work against them to a degree they can get away with...without completely pissing the US off. The US gains from the UN as well so they wont leave over minor things. France would have loved to give no ambiguity in 1441 but couldn't. Please explain why, if there was no fear of US withdrawal or other consequences, they did this?

Yes, and why should you or anyone care of her decision? Care as an interesting discussion maybe. Tell her she shouldnt or cant make that decision, nobody should say that. since you asked the question that way though I cant help but respond with: Yes, and why should you or anyone care of someones decision to be gay and be married by a church that is willing to do so?

a few thouhts.... Its pretty much impossible to intervene in North Korea now. If this nut is going down I truly believe he will fire his bomb off at someone (probably Seoul). What needs to be done is to ensure that he can not spread these weapons or weapons plans/technology to non-state actors who may be able to use them via unconventional means (not with a missile). Or for that matter make sure he cant use them via unconventional means. Blockade the country and search every ship. I was told Bush called for this today and I have to say I actually agree with him on something. Sanctions really arent going to accomplish much. They wont hurt the leadership and the leadership doesnt care whatsoever if the people are hurt. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/1...orea/index.html Bush arguing that direct talks cant occur is ridiculous. When nuclear weapons are involved talking is good whether you convince the other guy to give up his weapons or not. If Russians and Americans never talked during the Cold War things may have ended up a lot differently. Its time to realize that this nutjob just joined the big boys club whether we like it or not. Although Id prefer that North Korea didnt have nuclear weapons (obviously) I dont exactly blame them. If you were publicly insulted by another world leader then placed under the "axis of evil" wouldnt you be getting a little worried (especially with another member of the axis being invaded). Didnt North Korea remove themselves from the NPT (which they have the legal right to do) in retaliation for being placed in the "axis of evil"? Correct me on this if Im wrong. The US policy towards this nutjob pretty much forced his hand and then the US failed in talks to stop him. I think the ball is now clearly in Chinas court to see what they can do. Itll be interesting if China takes this as the opportunity to assert itself in the SC and hammer out a strong resolution (emergency SC meeting was today). If China does so we could really see a drastic change in geo-politics. "I have think I know the "best" solution for the time being. It is simple - give his what ever he wants, as well as a seat in the security council." Not too much appeasement or he may get a little to much confidence. You still have to play tough but stop short of actual invasion. When you mention Hitler I cant help but think of how appeasement ended up in that case. I might be joining you hiding out in the caves soon especially depending on what happens with Iran now. The failure to stop North Korea is going to play a big part in what happens with Iran. Not wanting to continue a precedant of allowing these regimes to arm is going to result in tough action against Iran in my opinion.

"So, you have proof to support your claim the US controls the UNSC?" as a veto holding member it has power to shootdown any resolution. In this manner it has the same power as every other member on the SC. However, as the lone superpower (until China decides to assert itself) it has more power because it could single handidly bring the SC to an end by withdrawing. Anyone who denies this and believes the SC can fulfill its mandate without the US is holding an idealistic world view that completely ignores the ridiculous hardpower that the US has. The US has also asserted, under George Bush, that it has no problem ignoring multilateralism in what it decides is its best interests. For weaker powers such as France who cling to their veto as their last gasp they must back down to the US if the US threatens to say theyve had enough of the whole UN thing. It may not be complete domination of the SC (failure to get second resolution) but they do have the upper hand. If they absolutly needed the second resolution they probably could have forced it out. They didnt though, they had a strong enough legal argument to satisfy domestic interests and without any world court to hear the case and their veto they were safe.

Well I think I might have spoken too soon...because come to think of it, the highly likely implications will be condoning an oppressive scenario. Have you considered the scenario that the whole Muslim population will be intimidated and forced by the radicals/extremists to use that kind of hospital? Have you thought about the women, at least? We know how women are treated in Muslim countries. You bet they'll have no say at all about whether they wish to get treated in a quality facility or this hospital from the dark ages. What about children? They may be living right smack in the middle of a civilized democratic country....but actually, it's like they're being thrown back to the pit. A poor woman dying and in pain, being denied the relief and cure....yet only beyond the gates of that hospital lies her hope to live. That's cruel! I mean it seems like a sadist's fantasy. So now, right in the backyard of a democratic society, a situation like this is just fine and dandy with you? I can only assume from this comment that you have absolutly no contact with Muslim people in Canada. I do work for many Muslim families and the women are not oppressed. In fact in most cases the women made a lot of the decisions and seemed to exercise the same power over their husbands that white women do. Of course Im not suggesting that in some Islamic countries women arent oppressed, they clearly are. But most of these countries dont have freedoms in general so we wouldnt even be having this debate. We are discussing this in a western democracy context and thats important to remember. All Muslim people I have ever met here in Canada are here because they like this country and they like it because of the freedoms we have here. I cant speak for the Netherlands but I would say in Canada there would be amost no worries of "extremists" forcing all Muslims to use these hospitals against there will. I get this from actually knowing Muslims and talking to them. I get the impression that a lot of scared right wingers in this forum have never met any Muslims and would refuse to associate with anyone who is Muslim. "So now, right in the backyard of a democratic society, a situation like this is just fine and dandy with you?" -do you mean the situation of Muslims being forced to use these hospitals? A situation that has NOT happened and is very unlikely to happen. If it were to happen I wouldnt consider it fine and dandy but it has not happened.

depending on how expensive she is he might want to keep busy with work a little longer and get playoff bonuses

"And it amazes me how politically correct people who snear and ridicule and mock and condemn Christians for not abandoning every single aspect of their faith which collides with some multicutural, sexual lifetyle issue sweepingly endorse racist, sexist, misogynistic and bigoted behaviour from "brown" people." Explain to me how I ever endorsed racist, sexist, misogynistic and bigoted behaviour from muslim people. "As for your "who cares, go somewhere else" argument, I can't help wondering if you'd feel the same if Pat Robertson opened a hospital to treat White Christians only, promising there would be no "jewish" medicines used." Wouldnt bother me. If its a religous institution they can do as they please and Ill keep using public hospitals and hospitals that I am comfortable with. "For that matter, how about if I open a bar for Whites only. Hey, you can just go to the next one, right?" For me there is a distinction between hositals and regular businesses and you can probably rightfully argue that there may be no distinction. If you want to start up a bar as a club that would be fine but when you take out a business license for a bar you are agreeing to certain legal obligations. I wouldnt know if business licenses for private hospitals are required, if they are different then any regular license etc. In a public healthcare system I would assume that there is nothing saying that you need a license and no legal requirements then are present. If legal requirements of opening a hospital are legislated then I guess you win. But again, I still see medical care maybe as something people may have religous beliefs regarding. These beliefs seem more legitmate to me than some sort of argument about who your beliefs allow you to drink with. For me it really comes down to what I consider reasonable. I dont think it is all that offensive or unreasonable to have a private hospital that practises medicine on religous basis as long as they meet certain requirements that I listed above. Maybe I might have to add that they cant exclude people but honestly if your Jewish or Christian or aethiest are you going to go to an Islamic hospital?

So I'd very much want to hear what you think of this, Bradco: I think you already approve of Muslims to be able to exercise the freedom to kill all Jews. Apparently you have no problems at all with that. But how about ...one of your pet minority group? The gays? The Muslim religion does not tolerate gay marriages either. Actually they don't tolerate gays at all. The extremists and fundamentalist wants to behead all gays. So you're saying they should be given that freedom to express their religious belief? It's okay for Muslims to behead gays too? Because to not to agree with that would be nothing more than "prejudice" against the Muslim faith....a racism, pure and simple? I'm waiting for your answer...since you're so aggressive and prolific with your accusations towards us who disagree with your thinking....which I truly find confusing, to say the least. So correct me if I'm wrong. Explain yourself so I may understand your rationale. If you're going to make accusations...at least offer some explanations as to why. When have I approved of any religious freedom to kill all Jews? I am saying religious freedom to set up a Private (not publicly funded) hospital doesnt seem to be a problem. Religous freedoms end when they are being used to take away freedoms of others. Freedom of life is probably the most important so I would never approve of religous freedoms to kill people and any suggestion I do is ridiculous. Having their own PRIVATE hospital isnt restricting another groups freedom. Again on gays. Beheading them is definetly taking away freedoms from them. So no this isnt okay. When I said "when it comes to religious freedoms for Islamic people" I did not mean it to be taken as any and all religous freedoms should be allowed. In this threads context a private religious hospital is a freedom that is okay. I said nothing about allowing any and all freedom based on their religous beliefs. All freedoms, as I have argued in places on this forum, should be subjected to the harm principle. This includes religous freedoms for people of the Islamic faith. Im sorry I felt this should be implied and I didnt make it overly clear to you. I dont feel I am prejudicing against a faith when I say they cant behead other people. In a world where everyone has different beliefs I think we must balance freedoms. My argument against beheading isnt against muslim freedoms but in favour of freedoms for another group. I realize that there is still conflict between the freedoms but Im not purposely prejudicing a group, Im defending another groups freedom. My accusation against Christians is that they will always defend their religous freedoms but never admit anyone elses freedoms. In this case the freedom to have a private hospital is a reasonable freedom. I have no problem if people, including Christians, wont defend unreasonable freedoms such as killing jews but it is all too often that they refuse even reasonable freedoms. And I believe this is a problem with more religions than just Chritianity and is one of the reasons why I am anti-religion. Religous beliefs dont allow for, or at least people interpret them as not allowing for, reasonable compromise of conflicts of freedom. It is my personal opinion that rational arguments should be used not religous ones.

Yet if it was a white Christian hospital I bet there would be a lot of people on this forum that would say thats ok and anyone saying it wasnt was not respecting religious freedoms. It is a private religious institution. Who cares. Use the regular hospital system already in place. Im anti-religious and I have no problem with religous people having their own hospitals if they choose as long as I dont have to use it or have my tax money pay for it and I can still get healthcare elsewhere. It amazes me how people scream and cry about religous freedoms for Chritians on this forum ( ie on gay marriage) but when it comes to religious freedoms for Islamic people its a different story. Thats "prejudice and racism pure and simple".

Bertuzzi was a big part of the offense 2 and 3 seasons ago. Plus he started this season with a 4 point night. I think he just needed a change of scenery after the incident. I think it will be one of those moves that turns out to be good for both teams. Its a contract year he will do pretty good. His one real good season was a contract year. I personally just dont like the guy. His attitude blows and his work ethic is horrible. He could be the best player in the league but he loves to take nights off. Not to mention he put a gigantic blackmark on the entire organization with that incident. I love how he followed up his 4 point night by going a minus 3 the next game typical Bert.

dramatic increase it is then

-If you read my previous posts you will see why I argued the Bush adminstration bothered with the SC (it has to do with domestic politics). I think it is entirely possible that the US would withdraw from the UN if a resolution was brought against them. Bush has showed his distatse for multilateralism and the UN in general. I wouldnt be surprised is the French were threatened behind closed doors about bringing a motion to the SC to declare the invasion illegal. -A true court of law (not a political body with one superpower throwing its wait around) I believe would determine the invasion illegal. Especially when the ambassodors to the UN are on record as saying the very resolution they say authorizes force does not allow for any "automaticity". I dont have a link for this. My source is Dr. Michael Byers (Canadian Research chair in Global Politics and International Law, Academic Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues). -The resolution recognizes that the relevant resolutions from the first iraq war authorized any necessary means. They do not expressly authorize any necessary means in 1441. It is a recognition that the SC has the right to decide, upon notification of violations, to reinstate the rate to use all necessary means. When Blair came back to the SC he did not get that resolution.

I have no problem with the hospital if it meets a few requirements: -Its fully private. No public dollars to a hospital that wont treat everyone. -Muslims have the right to not use the hospital. -The hospital proves that it is effective (not all their patients croak) -It doesnt allow the spread of disease. Acts in a medically professional manner. If it meets these requirements then whats the issue?

Am I the only person who thinks trying to overthrow a government with a nuclear weapon might be a bad idea. If he is going down is the only time he would use the thing. That is kind of the point of getting it in the first place. Its a deterrant. If the west wants to take it away they ought to give North Korea something. Maybe give him something on the condition some food gets to the starving population. If we in the west expect people to live under a double standard without compensation we are very mistaken.

Let me put it this way: in the absence of a qualified body (an authorised and legitimate court) there's no point in trading the "legal - illegal" argument, no matter which side one'd take. I cannot agree that it was legal but without legal reference (law) and a court to make final judgement, there's no realistic possibility to prove otherwise. The argument would simply go on forever. There is still a difference between someone's actions being illegal and someones actions being convicted. Krusty wants to confuse the two. His argument is since there is no court and the US can veto any SC resolution then the action is by default legal. This is not true. The action is by default unconvicted. There is a difference no matter how badly you dont want to see it. If a murderer walks away from a conviction on a techincality (say unlawful confession attained) did he still not commit an illegal act? Murder is still an illegal act unless in self-defense which is not why he was not convicted. Commiting an illegal act and being convicted of an illegal act are diferent. The legal argument against intervention is strong. Even the US/UK ambassdors admitted the resolution did not allow for automaticity. The ability to never prosecute and get a conviction is zero. They could table a resolution and have it vetoed and you'd still argue it was legal because they didnt get a conviction. So whats the point? The risk would be having the US throw a hissy fit and pull out of the UN, effectively destroying the one institution that attempts to put legal contraints on war.

I don't think you are going to like the results at all.......I predict that Vancouver will finish dead last in their divsion. They just hyaven't improved their team enough from last year, and the Sedins -playing first line now- will be exposed as the limp aliens that they are..... The Oilers are much better up front, and I don't understand the comment that they are too small and not physical enough... Didn't you watch their winning run to the Cuop final last year, playing high speed, violent hockey? Hwo could you miss that ? Since then, they have dumped the uber-weenies Samsonov and Dvorak and replaced them with better - Sykora and tougher/better -Lupul - forwards. Also in the meantime, their core of great young players are just that much better - Greene, Horcoff, Stoll, Hemsky, Torres, Pisani,Lupul etc. Time will tell, should be an entertaining season. Ya the Sedins were pretty much the top line for the last half of the last season. If it wasnt for them we would have plummeted to the basement with St. Louis. Dominated playing with Carter and now they have Naslund. 3 games in and that line has 12 points combined. This team is way better than last year. Addition by subtraction by dropping Bertuzzi, that guys a bum. Now have one of the top 3 goalies in the league. Defense is about the same as last year. Only problem with it last year was it was riddled with injuries. Take the top three dmen out of any team and see how good they play. Better work ethic so far (got rid of lazy players like Bert, new coach, coming off a horrible seaon) and all looks really good.....gonna be a lot of people surprised what this team can do. Last years team sucked not from a lack of skill but because there were some serious team unity problems, dressing room problems. Dave Nonis made sure to deal away all the problem guys and only bring guys in who dont have a history of being cancers in the locker room. I dont mind if they get underestimated....itll be good for them. Should of won tonight just got to stay out of the penalty box.