ScottSA

Apparently you have the time to respond with such useless remarks, and yet you don't have time to answer the question about how your culture is superior to every other culture in the world. It's a stupid question. Why would I bother? Let me ask a rhetorical question. Would you rather live as a citizen of a western democracy or under an eastern tyranny? Let me narrow it down a bit further: would you rather live in Canada or Pakistan? Wait, let's level the playing field a bit more: would you rather live in Canada or India, since India is at least nominally a democracy? Oh wait, democracy came from the west too, so lets...hmmmm, well, Saudi Arabia is a good eastern form of governance. Sharia is a lovely vibrant and diverse...well, maybe not diverse...form of government spawned from a different culture. Ok, maybe that's not fair; what about southern Africa? Oops, the colonials forced civilization on it, so we'll have to go back to the days before the evil Bwana showed up. Well, we can't do that, because you'd be dead from Zulu raids spawned by thier no doubt enlightened, if arbitrary, seasonal genocides. I'll leave it up to you...which culture would you prefer to live in?

I bet they are actually better employed than you... There's a paycheck for gnashing one's teeth at the evil satan while one lives in it? Oh wait, you're right, there is.

Could it be that you will not reply with an excerpt from your source because you don't have access to it and simply sourced an un-read article that claims to explain why the assertions Ive presented are false? You seemed perfectly happy to get 'bogged down' in legal 'minutiae' when your legal assertions were going unchallenged by substantive sources. May I remind you the title of this thread? One thing I have noticed about bushies is that they will disregard anything and everything that does not re-enforce there assertions, and then attack the contesting view with personal or general insults, and then try redirecting the line of argument by asking a bunch of questions of which there is no definite answer. However in this case I must point out in response to your question of: The source you provided states: "leading nations (primarily France, Germany, and Russia) and many international scholars have argued that international law did not justify the war in Iraq" You have sourced a counter argument from which you seem not to have read and which most likely can not be read by many others in this forum unless they have access to the JSTOR database. You've refused to illustrate how your counter argument actually pertains to the argument Ive presented, yet you continue to assert that your assertions are correct. Hope your proud of yourself... You claim to look at the big picture. I suspect it's wallet sized and depicts yourself standing next to God. Show me a subsequent UNSC resolution rendering the invasion illegal. You can't. In the absence of such a resolution, all the recourse you have is to dig up inconsequential legal opinions and trade them with me. The UNSC is the final arbiter of international law, such as international law is, and only it can formalize a legality or illegality. What you are in effect doing is pointing to a lawyer standing outside a courthouse bellowing that a defendant on trial inside is guilty, and claiming that this lawyer's bellowing proves that what he says is true. Except that the US is not even on trial...so your lawyer is really trying to claim that a bystander is guilty of something he's not even on trial for. International law is a joke, and its enforcement is even more of a joke. It's a collection of conventions loosely tied around a set of principles and interpreted and enforced by the strongest people on the block...or at least it used to be...these days the UNSC isn't even reflective of the major powers. Be that as it may, it is all the law the international arena has, and simply making claims about it matters not one whit. Backing claims up with reference to opinion means nothing at all either. The left has grown fond, over the years, of claiming that every action it doesn't like is "illegal," often citing opinion pieces and UNGA resolutions as "proof," when they are about as meanigful as me claiming the moon is square and citing my opinion as "proof" of it.

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Not the slightest clue. This is not about the police coming to your house. This is not about warrants. This is not about domestic law. This is about intl law. Your analogy points to the dearth of a clue you have about this entire subject.

*yawn* I wonder if Canadians prefer John Lennon to Paul McCartney?

Selective reading again ScottSA. The sentence clearly states: "applying traditional international law theory mutatis mutandis". You strongly suspect that in context it is thoroughly rebutted? Well than do be so kind as to provide some reference as opposed to you unqualified opinion. Here is the link so you can reply appropriatly. I'm afraid, boyo, that the selective reading is on your part. This is not a legal rendering, it's an article in a journal, the counter to which I or anyone else can find all over the net. In fact, if there were any strength to this argument, France would have used it loudly and often. HA! What ridiculous rhetoric. A legal journal, analyzing legal rendering, authored by legal experts. And you consider this to be insuficient in response to your own legal analysis! Ofcourse you havnt even read the 44 page article that you so self-righteously disregard! A clear illustration of your hypocratic nature on this forum. A failure to respond to this discredits everything youve said thus far. (Edit: Thank you for editing your post and providing a source. I will have to go to the library to read it. However, I have posted an excert pertaining to the resolution revival argument. Maybe you could post an excert form your source? In Particular from the section that claims to explain how "other leading nations (primarily France, Germany, and Russia) and many international scholars...failed to properly read existing Security Council resolutions to authorize the use of force.") No, I'm not going to get bogged down in vague arguments of legal minutiae that neither one of us are equipped to argue. I have a general knowledge of international law from a political studies background, but I am no more an international lawyer than you are. One thing I have noticed about truthers is that they will focus on one tiny aspect of an issue and hammer it home, ignored the general vistas around it. That's what you're doing here, or attempting to, and I'm not going to play. If Russia or France had an issue with the legality of it, why, as members of the UNSC, did they sign 1441 wchich reaffirmed 687 and, just for good measure, expand it? Why did they not claim that the invasion was illegal after the fact? Unlike truthers, I prefer to look at the big picture, the obvious, rather than select tiny questions. I have shown you a counter argument from The American Journal of International Law. I can find dozens more, as you well know, just as you too can find lots arguing your side. None of that matters in the final analysis, because in order for it to be "illegal" de jure, a UNSC res olution claiming it to be is needed, and it'll be a frosty day in hell before that happens.

Selective reading again ScottSA. The sentence clearly states: "applying traditional international law theory mutatis mutandis". You strongly suspect that in context it is thoroughly rebutted? Well than do be so kind as to provide some reference as opposed to you unqualified opinion. Here is the link so you can reply appropriatly. I'm afraid, boyo, that the selective reading is on your part. This is not a legal rendering, it's an article in a journal, the counter to which I or anyone else can find all over the net. In fact, if there were any strength to this argument, France would have used it loudly and often. Here, for instance, is a counterargument in a much much more prestigious journal: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 If you don't have access, you can read the brief.

Multiply the time that has passed since the creation of the Universe and multiply that by the speed of light. No. Most estimates put the age at 15 billion years. I can't say for certain if that is correct, but it's irrelevant. How? Most likely something resembling the "big bang". It started from nothing. By definition, absolutely nothing. Of course it does, what are you talking about? No. I did no such thing. I argued that it's easier for me to believe a relatively unintelligent being can be created from nothing, than a super intelligent God being created from nothing. True. The beginning of time was the beginning of the Universe. Space and time are intricately linked. Read up on the theory of relativity. It's not impossible at all. Show me where I said God is impossible so I can correct my mistake. Once again, I said it seems to me that it's much more probable for humans to come from nothing than it is for a super-intelligent being to come from nothing. That's all I'm trying to argue here. Anything else is a strawman. Excellent obfuscation, but you failed to answer what came before the universe, some 15 billion years ago. And since matter cannot originate from nothing, you have some real paradoxes to explain. Or not, as you so choose. Just to jog your memory, you did in fact claim that God was impossible, and you hinged your argument on precisely the same argument I made against the existence of the universe. It's gratifying that you're now trying to wiggle out of your unsustainable original argument, but you're kinda busted: You said: "The creation of man clearly depends on the existence of God, and the existence of God depends on the creation of God (you can't exist without being created)." Its more probably that the universe doesn't exist than that it does, and yet it does exist.

What a pointless line of argument. Do you dispute that Japan attacked the US in 1941? If you admit it did, must you now admit that Japan attacked Botswana in 2007?

Selective reading ScottSA. I noticed you've failed to address the qoute from the Georgetown Law Journal that debunks exactly what you've been touting as justification of the legality of the Iraq war. That argument is a specious one even if it isn't taken dishonestly out of context. The very use of the term "mutatis mutandis" from domestic contract law makes it quite clear that this is a grasping after straws, and I strongly suspect that in context it is thoroughly rebutted by other parties. Res 687 doesn't require a further stipulation that member states be allowed to resume hostilities. International enforcement is on the posse system, not under some variation of domestic law that requires a police force and specific authorization for each action. This argument is tantamount to demanding that a policeman requires a specific law written for each arrest he is about to make. Sure, the agreement is between the UN and Iraq, but the UNSC is the enforcement arm of the UN, so unless the UNSC issues a resolution abrogating 687, it stands for enforcement. What the UNSC did instead of abrogating it is issue 15 more resolutions recalling and affirming it.

I realize that Hitler got lots of his ideas from Italy. I maintain that it was Germany and Italy who were taken to task for the threat they presented outside their borders. And I think I did say that Italian fascism collapsed because it was Italian. In any event, I don't think the occupation of Germany builds the case for a long presence in Afghanistan. Well, I believe you were arguing that ideologies can't be stomped out from outside, and fascism is proof positive that it can be.

Ah, at least now we're into probabilities rather than the arrogant certainties of atheism. So, where exactly do you think the universe ends? Is it possible for it to go on forever? When did it start, and how? It couldn't have started from nothing, right? And when did it start, and what was before that? None of this works according to logic, does it? See where we're going here? It's exactly the same logical paradox you constructed and used as evidence against the existence of God. God must have been created in order to exist, just as the universe must have begun sometime and somewhere to exist, and it couldn't have begun at the beginning of time, because time has no beginning. Yet the universe exists anyway, right? It spite of its extant impossibilities. The universe is inherently impossible, yet it is. Your argument was that God is inherently impossible, and I am arguing that He is anyway.

Only Italy and Germany were a threat outside their border. I am of the opinion that Italian fascism was in part many types of movements from nationalism, anti-socialism, authoritarianism and militarism in one package. Like many Italian coalitions, it fell apart like a house of cards when under pressure. German Nazism was exclusive to Germany. While it also had elements of what we see in Italian fascism, it was more heavy on the militarism. Given that the German people also bought into the Aryan nation idea, the country posed a threat to almost every one. I think there are few people who disagree it was the right thing to do to defeat Germany and crush Nazism. I think that Canada can only respond to threats in quick fashion. Any attempt to stay in one place makes us a target and some of these countries offload their security almost entirely on us. I do believe that Afghanistan needs help. However, when the ANP walks away from fights or is so corrupt that they are the enemy of the people, we are getting in so deep that it hard to see where the bottom is. I suggest you read up on the interwar period. Hitler got many of his ideas from Italian fascism...Nazism is simply a shortening of the name of the NSDAP...a fascist party largely modelled after the Italian fascismo. But that's not all, of course; the Falange, the Estado Nova, the Iron Guard and a number of other parties across Europe modelled after either the Italians or the German fascists, including the British Union of Fascists of Mosley and even a small fascist party in the US. The Italian fascist party didn't collapse because it wasn't Nazi, it collapsed because it was run by Italians. Don't do the Google U thing man...it'll bite you in the butt every time.

Exactly. Now you're getting it. Now there's a catch-22. God can't create himself unless he exists...but God can't exist unless he created himself. Then you'd just have to explain where the entity that created God came from, ad infinitum see above The creation of man clearly depends on the existence of God, and the existence of God depends on the creation of God (you can't exist without being created). You're just not getting it, are you? You're trying to place the constraints of western rationality on God. It's rather silly, really. The argument is not about where God came from, it's about where man came from. God, according to most traditions, is the beginning and end, the alpha and omega, as the greeks would have it. In all traditions, God simply "is," a concept that transcends western rationality in most aspects. That may not be possible within the confines of the logic of your argument, but either, for that matter, is the endlessness of the universe, and I hardly expect you to argue that the universe doesn't exist just because its existence is impossible according to the logic of your argument.

In other words, you don't have an answer and are trying to avoid the question. No. If you want to argue that another current 3rd world or stoneage culture is superior, have at 'er. I'm not going to waste my time explaining that the sun is hot, although if you present an argument against the obvious, I guess I'll trounce it for you.

The UNSC 687 Resolution revival argument was bogusly put forth by the Bush administration. In a letter dated March 7, 2003 from the British Attorney General to Prime Misnister Blair the right to use force by either the US or UK is disscused This is the usual dishonesty of a truther. What you are quoting, in select part, is a legal brief by the British Attorney General to Blair discussing possible legal tactics by opposition forces. Do truthers lie and misrepresent as a matter of course or only most of the time? Oh, and find me the codification of a docrine of proportionality, if you'll be so kind.

That's not true, actually. The 'one country' bit anyway. Fascism was not only quite popular in Europe prior to and during the war (Spain, Italy, Balkans, parts of northern Europe), but it was popular even in England and the US within a significant and generally influential segment of society. It didn't reform itself from within, it got the shit kicked out of it from without, and its tail stepped on quite soundly in those places where it existed outside the influence of its national power bases. And Islam may be a religion, but it is an ideology as well. And it can be, if not entirely stamped out, at least neutered to the point that Jihad becomes seen as a losing proposition.

I'm not saying other cultures are superior to the west...but perhaps you could tell me in what way our culture is superior to every other culture? No. If it's not self evident to you, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it.

Let's hope there is a 2207 and an English language. Unless things change fast, there certainly won't be.

Banks and airlines do not detain potential customers for 8 hours, and treat them they way these people were treated. It's one thing for the U.S. to refuse entry to their country, that is entirely understandable...but what's the point in detaining them for so long when there was no reason to believe they are a threat? How would you feel if I owned a bank and you walked inside and I arrested you? Has August threatened to kill everyone over the age of 21 in a given country? I hadn't noticed. If so, he should be banned from here and immediately detained at the US border.

What are you talking about? God exists doesn't he (it, she)? Just as man exists. Now, man came into existence through evolution. Most theists believe this is not possible, man is too intelligent to have evolved. God came into existence through some apparently unknown process. Most theists have no problem believing that something much more intelligent than man could come into existence through this "unknown" process. Is that more clear? Sure it's clear enough. Clarity on my part isn't the problem. You're setting up arbitrary parameters to a hypothetical and STILL not getting the obvious flaw in it. You're claiming that if God created man, something had to have created God, right? But that's a nonsequitor. God is not man, and man is not God, and most theists would also argue that God is capable of far more than man, by definition. God may have created Himself, or been created, or been glued together by the energizer bunny, for all the relevance it has to the origins of man. The creation of man in no way depends upon the creation of God.

I think the greatest insult is the one done to our intelligence by nonsensical 911 conspiracy theorists. I don't know if its a general insult or a specific insult, but it's certainly an insult. As for equating a debate over climate to an event witnessed in realtime by 6 billion or so people, that's an insult to the intelligence too.

I have several stories that I've begun here (filed away)...but all are unfinished. Some for children and juvenile, a couple possible thrillers. It's just a matter of getting disciplined again to actually sit down at a scheduled time and really finish what I've started. And to get psyched up again. I was used to pressure back then....my stories were being published weekly. I had to produce something to meet the deadline. A few years ago I was thinking of sending and submitting stories to the publication house I used to write for, unfortunately it had closed down (along with the other popular publishing houses of the time), after the people's revolution. What replaced them now produce smutty-types. Thank you for the encouragements. It's working! Just talking about this is firing me up again! Good to hear. I spent way too much time chasing money before I decided to do what I wanted to do. If you have issues with ESL, just get a good editor on Guru.com or Elance.com or somewhere and get an opinion from them. Good ones are not cheap, but they're worth it.

Looks like we're back to square one. If you or any other theists have trouble believing that life as intelligent as humans could evolve from "nothing", then why do you have no problem believing that God, who is presumably much, much more intelligent than humans, could come from "nothing"? I would have thought that the answer is obvious. Because theists don't believe man is God.

That is a fairly vague description of a solution. I have no idea what you think should actually be done to "stomp out" or make "extremely unpleasant." We have seen both Iraq and Afghanistan are not being quelled easily. In Iraq, even the most devoted Republicans to the cause are starting to say it is time to leave. Even O'Connor the other day was saying that Afghanistan may never be stable. As I said, I have no problem going after terrorism or those that support terrorists. I think you mean more than that though but I can't seem to pin you down on what that means. Well, it doesn't mean running away because it's "hard" as you seem to suggest. It means to stop trying to play both sides of the field; stop allowing Cair and Cair-can and it's little buddies to cynically employ what amount to Goebbelian propaganda tactics, stop trying to pretend that Islam is a "religion of peace," and put some real muscle behind the war effort, including expanding it if necessary to Syria and almost certainly Iran. And I don't mean "nation build" either...if they want a Marshal Plan in the aftermath on our terms, fine. If they want instead to stew in the rubble without one, that's fine too.Everyone seems to have forgotten what happened to the so-called "Arab Street" when the US originally showed resolve. It ran away fast. Islam understands strength and mocks weakness, and at the risk of invoking a much overused analogy, that's exactly how Hitler managed to manipulate the powers for so long. This has nothing to do with silly "Holy Wars" or anything else. It has to do with defeating an ideology, a scourge.