ScottSA

Actually, that wasn't my argument. I've simply noted a strong correlation between fear of radical Islam and a certain breed of regressive conservatism. Not all conservatives are morons but all morons are conservatives. Here we have Woody's contribution to the thread. Thank you woody. Now go play outside and let the adults talk, ok?

LMAO!! Woody, you really have to graduate high school. "In the process"? That means it wasn't in fact there legally. The Canadian government can't simply trot into the US and announce that it's setting up an office and issuing travel documents, and will soon get around to becoiming official. That's not how things work in the big wide world. I know that you'd love to take Iran's side against Bushitlerburtonshista, but it would be more effective if you learned something...anything...first.

The problem...well, one of the problems...is that under the current parliamentary system the logistics are unwarkable. It would simply allow one more layer of confusion. You say the PM has greater power under the Canadian system, and that's true. But it's only true in the case of a majority government. During the Chretien majority years, all effective power resided in the PMO. During a minority government however, that power is effectively softened by the need to compromise with the opposition parties. There's a good side to this, in that compromise can be a good thing, but there's a bad side as well, in that nothing very far reaching can ever be achieved. In the case of issues of national importance, it's even possible to become either deadlocked or, ironically, more radical (depending on which opposition group has to be parlayed with to pass whatever the bill is). What you want to do is take this situation and create the possibility for mix and match...an minority party with an opposition PM, a majority government run by a minority PM (almost certainly a recipe for disaster), or any other permutation...none of which is in any way to the good of the country. It's easy to say that the PM is then directly accoiuntable to he citizenry, but the practical effect is that said accountable PM may be completely hamstrung. Then we'd have to get into the question of what functional legal weight should be attached to the directly sanctioned PM as opposed to a party led PM, and then we'd have to revisit the constitution, and we all know where that goes...

It's heartening that the best the left can come up with is: "look at the buggers...they're doing exactly what we did! Shame!"

reported

Oh believe me, I know a tad about intl law, and you are very wrong. Actually, I don't believe that in the least. You seem to persistently mistake your (rather hackneyed rightwing) opinions with knowledge. By Charter, I suppose you mean the UN Charter. Please provide: 1-support for your contention that it is the 'highest'; 2-an explanation of why you suggest (even if it is the 'highest') that it is exhaustive. Your interpretation of the law is faulty. UNSC authorization was required to legitimize GWB's attack on Iraq, and it was never obtained. Better you start closer to home. Utter nonsense. I have explained, with references, the facts of the invasion of Iraq. You have responded by calling it "illegal", disregarding 16 UNSC resolutions, and blithely repeating thaty it is "illegal". If it was illegal, there must be a resolution coming to the conclusion. Where is it? Simply saying something is illegal doesn't mean anything. If I say it's illegal for you to be on this board, due to advanced stupidity, does that mean you are here illegally?

Reported. Well, obviously you're intimidated enough to try to have me ejected so you can continue to snipe away like a lightweight. I can't exactly say I'm honored; it's like intimidating a cornered mouse, but it speaks volumes about you.

Oh believe me, I know a tad about intl law, and you are very wrong. Chapter VII of the charter is the highest body of law dealing with international armed conflict, and UNSC resolutions are the interpretive judgements of that body of law. Resolution 687, the ceasefire resolution, set out terms for a ceasefire between the UN and Iraq, and that resolution was promptly broken and judged to be broken by 15 subsequent resolutions, including UNSC res 1441. War by the UN against Iraq was not only legal but demanded. Now, in a case like this, where a member of the UNSC claims legitimacy by virtue of previous UNSC resolutions, in order to make it NOT legal, or to outlaw it, there needs to be another interpretive resolution suggesting that it's not legal. In fact, let me help educate you...nothing is "illegal" or for that matter legal, unless it has been judged to be so by the UNSC. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was assumed to be against the standards of international law, and it was certainly in violation of some parts of Chapt I of the UNC, but it was not until the UNSC issued a resolution that it was ACTUALLY "illegal". Intl law is not like domestic law, with proactive positive freedoms and clearcut consequences, and such police force as exists is a posse system. So, you are either lying or ignorant. That is a fact, so don't bother reporting me. Or do, as you wish.

No WMDs, no justification for war, no UN authorization ... Oh, I'm going to report you for lying. Lying? ? Why yes. Please show me a UNSC resolution claiming the war was "illegal" or even in poor taste. You can't just go around calling things "illegal" you know unless they are. That's slander. You can't say there were no WMD when there were in fact WMD found, not to mention a whack of other things not allowed by the UNSC ceasefire resolution. So you're lying about two things, obviously. The term "justification" is a bit too subjective to be an actual lie; all it does is underline your stunning ignorance.

But you admit 900,000 soldiers had to come from somewhere, right? Obviously they couldn't be somewhere else, like on the Italian front, or North Africa, or the eastern front? Since Germany was actually retreating in all those places for a goodly amount of the war, they could probably have been used there, waddayathink? Honestly, you wade into these arguments completely unarmed with any knowledge, and get stoutly beaten and become so punchdrunk that by the end of them you're actually punching your own argument in the head.

No WMDs, no justification for war, no UN authorization ... Oh, I'm going to report you for lying.

Please refer me to a place that I failed to back up my arguments. I see no reason to allow a poster to fall into a pattern of abusing other posters. If that's the sort of thing you're looking for, you're probably in the wrong place. You might have some firsthand understanding of that, right? Please show me a place where you backed up an argument with anything more than a big tearful emote. Oops, is that reportable too?

What the article doesn't quite get around to mentioning is that the "liason office" is not there at the invitation of the Iraqi government, and is in fact there to facilitate the illegal entry of Iranian Revolutionary guards. You really must finish high school woody. After you do, can you please explain what British marines in Iraqi waters have to do with American raids in Iraq? Then perhaps you'll explain how a raid by US forces inside Iraq is "illegal".

Yes, that's true. The only problem is that I have actually backed up my claims, but all you have done is call me names. Woody, namecalling is not a good substitute for argument. In fact, to borrow your adjectives, it's ugly and false.

I already have. I'm sorry you suffer from ADD, but I'm not going to plunk the same stuff in front of your eyes every time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...770&ito=newsnow

I don't know why you feel it necessary to correct his obviously erroneous statements. He just makes up stuff and flings it out to see what, if anything, will stick. Next he'll claim there were more Japanese Shinto imperialists in Canada and the US than in Japan; just prior to claiming it's 'bigotry' to claim that Japanese nationals might have been spies.

Evidence Of Directed Energy Weapon used on 911? Presstitute? Sixteen percenter? Gatekeeper? He's got this down to a cult, compleat with the code rings and superduper secret codes. :lol:

You have obviously not read what you ought to have read prior to reading the Koran, if indeed you have read the koran. Which English translation did you read? Have you hear about the concept of 'abrogation'? That's the Muslim legal concept that renders all the early touchy feely stuff irrelevant, and allows the later really nasty stuff to supercede it. I sincerely doubt you have read the Koran, somehow. In point of fact, the so-called 'fundamentalists' can correctly claim to be the proper Muslims, since they are following the text more closely than the alleged moderates. That's simply fact, whether it "pisses you off" or not. If you can't figure out the danger, there's no point in me explaining it to you.

Woody, you need to graduate high school. Really, you do.

If you want to bring race into this, that is on your hands. You want to start a thread about Fisk, then go ahead. In the meantime, stop trying to hijack this one. Errr...you started arguing about Fisk after I made one comment of historical interest about the credibility of a writer. I merely responded. Stop hijacking the thread.

There is a great deal of shit going on, from Russia to Indonesia to New York. There are 2 hundredd and fortysome terrorist groups self-identified as Muslim terrorist groups around the globe. By far the lion's share of terrorist activity today is Islamic violence. I don't know exactly what threshold you would like to draw before the shit hits a level you'd call "a lot", but it's obviously right up there. If someone does something and then claims it's for X reason, I have no choice but to believe them. It would be highly presumptuous of me not to believe them. But it's not on the strength of that alone that I conclude its their religion that stands behind their actions, it's that I, like a lot of folks in the post 911 world, took the time to read up on their religion. We're not the first wave to do so; a century ago Winston Churchill took the time to do so and came to the same conclusion: Islam is not and never was a religion of Peace. There is no corrective in Islam like there is in Christainity; there is no New Testament. At its very root Islam is a religion premised upon violence. Whereas Christ rhetorically asked the sinless to cast the first stone in an attempt to avoid the stone, Islam demands that the stone be cast. Islam has trodden along for centuries without anyone caring what its tenets were; it is only now that it is being examined, and only fools would continue to slavishly worry about being "open-minded" and tolerant about a religion that actively demands either jizra or their deaths. I suggest you take the time to read a translation of the Koran. There are five different translations that are generally accepted by academia. Any one of them will open your eyes far more than hunkering down behind the myth of 'tolerance' and refusing to believe your eyes. Incidently, I'm not a Christian or a Jew, nor any other religion in particular, but here's a decent argument...obviously not as strongly put as I would prefer, but hey... http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0210bt.asp

I won't even get into this Nazi = Christianity debate, It's at best specious, and entirely based on the occasional thing Hitler said for public consumption long before reaching power, or on academic reaching. The fact is Nazism has nothing to do with Christianity, nor did it claim to. Islamic fundamentalism is exactly that; Islamic and fundamentally Islamic, and it claims to be. It's also a widespread intepretation of Islam, and is fast growing throughout the world. There simply isn't any way to equivocate about it, and any attempt to is silly.

Adolf Hitler was right wing. As well many churches went along with the fascists in the early 20th century. This discussion has been had. Nazism had nothing, zero, zilch, to do with Christianity. You're wrong, but I don't have time to educate you about it. Anyway, it's a red herring to direct attention away from Islam and its fundamental celebration of violence.

Once again, your startling inability to grasp basic facts renders your posts...well, suffice it to say that while libertarians, and I, couldn't care less what homosexuals do, libertarians are certainly not for collective special priviledges for homosexuals, or women, or anyone else. The left has tried to frame this as "anti", but it's clearly not. As usual, you use the particular-general fallacy: ["I haven't found any"...therefore there must not be any. ] There are. There are lots...it's just that they don't stand on streetcorners and holler slogans like the special priviledges groups do.