waldo Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 so, again, I quite willingly laid out your idiotic boogeyman scenario, the one that gave you your convenient UN slag. The idiotic scenario that presumes upon a UN ruling going against Russia, Russia moving the dispute to the World Court, the World Court ruling against Russia, Russia taking the World Court decision back to UN... and then... UN SC members ruling against "accepting the Russian claim"... and then Russia leveraging it's UN SC veto to... to veto... what? The question you can't/won't answer, because you know it shows just how ridiculous your fabrications run and the lengths to which you'll take them. If... if... everything lined up to feed into your ultimate Russian SC permanent member veto play, it would mean what? That Russia would veto the fact that international law won't recognize its Arctic aspiration claim? Would your imaginary Russian veto suddenly turn international law around to recognize a Russian Arctic claim? Whats the question? Because the original question was why the UN is useless, and I gave you a what if scenario and a real event you seem to see you are wrong yet you don't want to admit it and thus you try to put attention on what Russia will or will not do as opposed to what they CAN and CANNOT do. just answer the question! It's right there... to veto... what? And realize what? Quote
Argus Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 So vote NDP? K will do. Weren't the NDP pushing for us to pull people out of Afghanistan and send them instead to Sudan? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 Quebec isn't subsidized by anyone. Stop perpetuating this ridiculous myth. What planet do you live on? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Signals.Cpl Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 making more shyte up, hey? What I am saying... is what I said... that your Russian boogeyman scenario concerning Arctic aspirations, was just another of your trumped up, self-serving fabrications. What is the question you initially asked? I also see you had nothing to say about The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in 1984 ICJ case... lovely how your argument doesn't work and all you whine about is someone fabricating something. You claimed you were going to "school" me on how the UNSC works then you switched over to a what-if scenario, just like you claimed the US is to blame for Rwanda because they didn't provide APC's and when someone called you out on it you started whining about people concentrating on the APC and not the issue in question. KEep whining and keep changing the issue you discuss. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Argus Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 Apparently you don't understand how equalization payments work. That's where you tax the people in Alberta to send it to the spendthrift government of Quebec. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Signals.Cpl Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 just answer the question! It's right there... to veto... what? And realize what? And judgement from the ICJ is non binding for any SC permanent member BECAUSE ICJ judgements can only be brought to the UNSC for enforcement and the 5 permanent members US,UK,France,Russia and China can veto any resolution that is trying to enforce a ruling by the ICJ that went against them. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Argus Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 I expect you purchased a home insurance policy based on your personal risk assessment... what a concept!!! Everyone purchases home insurance. Other than idiots. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 So what? That isn't my point. My point is your they will invade us argument is wrong. We know of a country that has resources like Canada who no one has invaded that is right next door and have a thousandth of the population we have. This is not a realistic argument. There's little in Iceland anyone wants, and it's smack dab in the middle between a peaceful and democratic North America and a peaceful and democratic Europe. It's hardly threatened by anyone. But it relies on the fact that its allies on either side of the Atlantic would not allow it to be invaded by some third party. You're also assuming the world of the past is going to be the world of the future. We have no idea what China or Russia are going to look like in 20 years but we know they will not be democratic states with the slightest interest in human rights. We also don't know what's going to happen in Europe over the next 20 years. When you start seeing places with 50% unemployment among under 25s you have to consider the possibility of radical political changes. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 Thread drift, gentlemen. This is about the Conservatives not being able to disclose the DoD's expenses because they have no idea where the money went, therefore misleading parliament on costs... again. Oh, I thought it was about the mandarins at DND being temporarily unable to answer a question, thus giving you another excuse to complain about Stephen Harper being the antiChrist -- again. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 I believe no one in Alberta was crying when they were building the railroad to their province, or the grain elevators, or when they were throwing in money to build the infrastructure to get the oil out of the ground Have you paused a moment to consider that the reason we funded those things was to build the West up so that we, as a nation, would be stronger, and that the central government would be able to gain more taxes and more wealth and more power? I mean, we didn't fund them so the people out west would be happy. On the other hand, the money which goes to Quebec in the form of equalization does nothing whatever to enrich the coffers of the federal government, and does nothing whatever to make Canada wealthier or increase our production. Instead it goes mostly to social programs. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 Nope I think when we need to and want to we can call up however many Canadians we need to defend this country. Until that time though Would care to clarify? Are you suggesting that once we identify a genuine immediate threat we can then begin to build a military and put out contracts for guns, tanks, aircraft, etc? Perhaps we can even ask some Americans or Brits to come over to train this group of 'call-ups' you're speaking about? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 making more shyte up, hey? What I am saying... is what I said... that your Russian boogeyman scenario concerning Arctic aspirations, was just another of your trumped up, self-serving fabrications.I also see you had nothing to say about The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in 1984 ICJ case... lovely how your argument doesn't work and all you whine about is someone fabricating something. You claimed you were going to "school" me on how the UNSC works then you switched over to a what-if scenario, just like you claimed the US is to blame for Rwanda because they didn't provide APC's and when someone called you out on it you started whining about people concentrating on the APC and not the issue in question. Keep whining and keep changing the issue you discuss. unlike you... I can... and do stay focused on the discussion at hand... not the next one you want to deflect towards. I didn't switch to any, as you say, "what if scenario"... oh wait, that was your scenario... your Russian boogeyman scenario! What you were schooled on, big time, was just how a UNSC veto doesn't apply in the case of your fabricated Russian boogeyman scenario. The question you can't/won't answer, because you know it shows just how ridiculous your fabrications run and the lengths to which you'll take them. If... if... everything lined up to feed into your ultimate Russian SC permanent member veto play, it would mean what? That Russia would veto the fact that international law won't recognize its Arctic aspiration claim? Would your imaginary Russian veto suddenly turn international law around to recognize a Russian Arctic claim? so... would your imaginary Russian SC veto (of what???) suddenly turn international law around to recognize a Russian Arctic claim? Well... would it? Quote
waldo Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 Everyone purchases home insurance. Other than idiots. clearly... since MLW member, 'Signals.Cpl', is the one who made the insurance point, perhaps you should redirect your fluff accordingly, hey? Quote
waldo Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 so, again, I quite willingly laid out your idiotic boogeyman scenario, the one that gave you your convenient UN slag. The idiotic scenario that presumes upon a UN ruling going against Russia, Russia moving the dispute to the World Court, the World Court ruling against Russia, Russia taking the World Court decision back to UN... and then... UN SC members ruling against "accepting the Russian claim"... and then Russia leveraging it's UN SC veto to... to veto... what? The question you can't/won't answer, because you know it shows just how ridiculous your fabrications run and the lengths to which you'll take them. If... if... everything lined up to feed into your ultimate Russian SC permanent member veto play, it would mean what? That Russia would veto the fact that international law won't recognize its Arctic aspiration claim? Would your imaginary Russian veto suddenly turn international law around to recognize a Russian Arctic claim? just answer the question! It's right there... to veto... what? And realize what? And judgement from the ICJ is non binding for any SC permanent member BECAUSE ICJ judgements can only be brought to the UNSC for enforcement and the 5 permanent members US,UK,France,Russia and China can veto any resolution that is trying to enforce a ruling by the ICJ that went against them. does your imaginary Russian veto suddenly invent international law? Quote
dre Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Would care to clarify? Are you suggesting that once we identify a genuine immediate threat we can then begin to build a military and put out contracts for guns, tanks, aircraft, etc? Perhaps we can even ask some Americans or Brits to come over to train this group of 'call-ups' you're speaking about? If a real threat ever emerges thats simply the only option we have. We simply cannot afford to maintain the kind of massive standing military that it would take to defend this country from real hostility by a major foreign power, and to even try is economic suicide. The countries that are trying to do this are driving themselves into the ground. We would have to increase military spending about 20 fold or more to really insure ourselves against all the potential threats out there, and the reality is that unchecked government spending is a far greater threat than the chinese, or the russians, or terrorists. Edited June 10, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Signals.Cpl Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 unlike you... I can... and do stay focused on the discussion at hand... not the next one you want to deflect towards. I didn't switch to any, as you say, "what if scenario"... oh wait, that was your scenario... your Russian boogeyman scenario! What you were schooled on, big time, was just how a UNSC veto doesn't apply in the case of your fabricated Russian boogeyman scenario. so... would your imaginary Russian SC veto (of what???) suddenly turn international law around to recognize a Russian Arctic claim? Well... would it? Lets use other countries in this "imaginary" scenario... Nicaragua has a problem with the US, they bring it in front of the ICJ and the ruling goes in favour of Nicaragua. The US promptly says that the ruling essentially does not apply to them and they will not accept it and thus the only means of appeal for the smaller country in the imaginary scenario is to go to the SC and ask for a resolution to be passed in order to force the US to comply with the ruling...guess what the US would do did? They used the veto power that was given to them. Now if the US doesn't give a sh*t about the UN or the ICJ what makes you think that Russia does? You can whine about it, but the reality is the the UN is a useless incompetent waste of money for any and all nations. I think the League of Nations proved that we need the US to play along for any world organization to actually work seeing as its the one member that everyone turns to. You seem to ignore that this has happened and still believe that the Russians will listen to the ICJ and the UN and behave, whereas the rest of us who do not live in WaldoWorld see that a nation will look out for its own interests above the interests of others, just like everyday people look out for themselves and their families first. The reality is that you are arguing about a subject you know nothing about, and you keep on switching the argument in order to exasperate your opposition in order for them to just walkaway so that you can "win". Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Signals.Cpl Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) does your imaginary Russian veto suddenly invent international law? You still ignore Nicaragua and the US... Edited June 10, 2012 by Signals.Cpl Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
waldo Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 Lets use other countries in this "imaginary" scenario... no - let's not... you can keep your jerk to a circle of one! You seem to ignore that this has happened and still believe that the Russians will listen to the ICJ and the UN and behave you just don't/can't get it! Behave??? If international law doesn't support Russian Arctic aspirations... international law doesn't support it. Of course the Russians, as any country, can choose to do whatever the hell it wants... except create international law per your imaginary boogeyman veto! Oh my, your thinking truly is muddled... to say the least! Quote
waldo Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 You still ignore Nicaragua and the US... you can't stay focused... you can't stick with the discussion at hand. I won't give your diversions, your deflections, your distractions the time of day... you can keep babbling for the next 20 posts about "Nicaragua versus the U.S.". I haven't looked at it and have no intentions to do so. I will not engage you on, "the next one"... the next of your, 'flights of fancy' distractions. Quote
Machjo Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 It's pretty bad when the National Post runs a story on the Conservative government's fiscal incompetence. It seems the Department of Defence can't explain why it spent $2.8 billion more in fiscal year 2012 than the previous year. In March, the final month of the fiscal year, they spent 55% more than the year before. So the Tories have been hacking and slashing spending, but the DoD is going on a spending spree. Meanwhile, Parliament can't find out where the hell the money is going because nobody wants to give any answers. Where's the promised accountability and transparency? Is this the type of fiscal management we can expect for the next 3 years? Mark my words, whatever is going on with the DoD as it pertains to this, procurement, and the F-35s is going to make adscam look like pocket change. It's going to make the airbus scandal look like a pittance. Last Federal election I handed in a blank ballot because not one local candidate was worth my vote; and since I never vote strategically on principle, there was no point voting for any candidate so I handed in a blank ballot. Some Canadians expressed a fear of a Conservative majority, but personally I figuered as they don't have a majority they can always pass the buck and blame their minority status, so though I was not hoping for a Conservative majority I really didn't fear it, figuring that it woudl give them a chance to prove themselves and, either way, could no longer blame their minority status no mater waht they did. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
westguy Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 That's where you tax the people in Alberta to send it to the spendthrift government of Quebec. exactly- well said Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 no - let's not... you can keep your jerk to a circle of one! you just don't/can't get it! Behave??? If international law doesn't support Russian Arctic aspirations... international law doesn't support it. Of course the Russians, as any country, can choose to do whatever the hell it wants... except create international law per your imaginary boogeyman veto! Oh my, your thinking truly is muddled... to say the least! I'm actually growing tired with your idiocy: Russia has claims, if those claims overlap with Canada's claims and Russia deems it beneficial they will win out one way or another. We can have 1 trillion judgements by the ICJ and write up resolution after resolution and they will veto any action by the SC. That means if one side is not cooperating then the other side goes to the SC and asks for a resolution to FORCE the noncooperative side to move(Nicaragua v USA) this would include anything from stern warning to war and everything in between. But since Russia has a veto power they are not under any obligation to accept a ruling from the ICJ because the ICJ cannot enforce its rulings only the UNSC can enforce those ruling if one side does not accept and the UNSC will not be helpful if the non-cooperative nation is a veto power... Seeing as you have said absolutely nothing about Nicaragua I am taking that as your way of admitting that you are wrong... waldo, next time pick a subject you know something about rather then engage in subject you know nothing about... You are welcome for the free lesson though... I know you won't admit it but I taught you something. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Argus Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 If a real threat ever emerges thats simply the only option we have. We simply cannot afford to maintain the kind of massive standing military that it would take to defend this country from real hostility by a major foreign power, and to even try is economic suicide. The countries that are trying to do this are driving themselves into the ground. First of all, that's why we belong to military alliances. Each of us alone might not have a large military, but together we have considerable power. And you can't belong if you don't bring something to the table. Second, that option you speak of is no option at all. It's totally unrealistic as it would take us several years at a bare minimum to produce any kind of halfway capable military from a standing start. Third, the countries that have the largest miilitaries are actually not doing all that badly. The ones doing worse are places like Italy and Greece, and Ireland, none of which is considered particularly militaristic. Canada's military in the 1960s were twice their present strength and we didn't seem to have much difficulty funding them. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Signals.Cpl Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 whatever nonsense you just fabricated has/had no bearing on what was discussed. Is there a reason you just can't address anything directly? Rather than continue your idiocy, just answer the question posed to you - that would be the question you ignored the first go around... and the question you now, once again, refused to answer. In the actual discussion... not your new fabricated nonsense, just what would the Russians be vetoing? Just answer the question. Don't deflect to some other 'whatever scenario' you now want to distract around... stay with the discussion and answer the related, the relevant, question. Just answer it! So thats the question? Well the Russians would veto any resolution that is passed up by Canada(should it come to that) to enforce a ruling by the ICJ. That means if the Russians present a case to the ICJ, and at the same time they start digging in the contested territory Canada can do nothing but wait for a ruling from the ICJ. Now if it goes in Russia's favour to bad... but if it goes in Canada's favour then we are at the mercy of Russia to comply with the ruling. If Russia determines that there is more benefit in occupying and developing the land in question then they will ignore the ruling... at this point Canada makes a request to the UNSC in the form of a resolution to force Russia to comply this could range from stern warning to an extremely unlikely enforcement through war and everything in between.At this point we will already know the outcome since Russia will shoot any resolution to force them to comply with the courts ruling meaning if the resolution calls for economic sanctions then Russia can veto it and there is NOTHING we can do about that hence Russia is above the law when it concerns the ICJ. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
eyeball Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 In 1930 all provinces got control over their natural resources - just like the eastern provinces. No, BC's salmon are not under BC's control at all. I find that really ironic in the face of Alberta who, like the proverbial eastern bastard, expects Ottawa to subordinate the interests of anyone west of them to their own selfish needs. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.