[Pathos]

Quote:

The fact is that the UN has called the war illegal, Gangrenous.

And that means what exactly? Are you suggesting that becuase that useless organ of darkest Africa says something is illegal that it is so? If that's the case you continue to prove my non-contentious point that you are indeed deluded.

Quote:

That is the real reason why Chretien decided not to join.

Where do you get this amazing insight into the PMO? Anything to do with Groom Lake?

Quote:

The war is illegal.

Prove it.

You insist on shouting this across the myriad of lefty boards you post on, so prove it. Put up or shut up.

Quote:

It is illegal, under international statutes, to follow an illegal order.

What statutes would those be?

Quote:

The agreements we are signatory to require us to accept soldiers who risk being persecuted for refusing to follow illegal orders.

Wow, yet again you must be receiving signals from someplace not of this earth. Please provide copies/links to this, after you have proven this war is illegal.

Quote:

The Martin government is doing everything they can to avoid this issue because they don't want to make Georgie mad.

Yet again you appear to have a pipeline into the PMO. Maybe we should be referring to you as bobby_blair in honour of Bob Woodward although it's more likely you just make this shit up as you go along.

Quote:

When the court decides that the issue of the legality of the war is irrelevant it stinks of political pressure from the top...something that is illegal.

Holy crap! What court? Is this the same court you decided that declared this war illegal or is it the local court at Main and Portage that you refer to? Which is it? If it's the former, then it kind of begs the question as to how a court can one day decide the war is illegal (as you say, although you've yet to prove it) and the next day succumb to political pressure (and that's illegal too I see you say, lol) and declare the war irrelevant.

This kid must and will be sent back. There is no countrry in the western hemisphere that's going to side with this wanker and his Canadian taxpayer funded defence. Naturally the system has to go through the motions 'casue you know what happens if they don't right? No? I'll tell you.... lefties appear in droves in every major city in Canada wearing the hallmark uniform of lefty cowards the world over; balaclavas, gloves, scarves, doc martens and acne.

[2Cdo]

Lets see Rev Dickhead, selling explosives to the bravos I believe happened in 1993(I may be wrong so enlighten me) I arrived in 1994. Selling stolen kit again I'll need dates as I don't recall anyone in 2PPCLI being convicted of or even charged for that while I was there.
As for beating up long hairs outside of peppers. Never been there, or for that matter any bar in Winnipeg as I don't drink anymore(different story).I'll admit to engaging in a fight or two when I was younger but in EVERY case it was initiated by the other party.
You seem to harbour an intense dislike for the military even though you claim to have friends in the Forces.
As for your implications of my wrong doing Rev, being completely innocent of your nonsensical rambling please fell free to crawl back under your rock.You are obviously one sick fucking dude. I mentioned before that you need help and you proved me right!
When an argument is lost just start ranting bullshit should be your motto!

[Rev_Blair]

Whatever you say 3CP0. By the way, you got so mad you posted that 4 times. Is the vein in your forehead throbbing? Worthless piece of crap.

Quote:

And that means what exactly? Are you suggesting that becuase that useless organ of darkest Africa says something is illegal that it is so?

The UN is the organisation that governs international law. We are signatories to that law, not a rogue nation.

Quote:

Where do you get this amazing insight into the PMO?

ummm...Chretien said there was no evidence. Without evidence the war is illegal.

The rest of your post is the usual ranting bullshit from an idiot who knows that he hasn;t got a grasp of the facts.

If Hinzman is returned to the United States it will be a travesty of justice carried out for political reasons.

[Scape]

The U.N. might not survive

The UN is doomed and will share the fate of it's predecessor, The League of Nations for much the same reasons. Conquest in the name of Imperialism. As much as the UN detractors try to portray that the mandate of the UN is controlled either by corruption or by the deepest darkest corner of Africa it is not. The Power is and has always been with the permanent members of the security council. If any one of them pull out the whole thing will collapse. There is much good that can be done in the UN but it is only good as it's member states. The collapse of the UN will usher in a new era of regionalism where economics not humanist ideals will be the new politics. There is a lot in play but one thing is for certain, the idealism of world peace and universal enforceable international law is a long way off and we will not see it in our lifetimes.

[Rev_Blair]

I think the UN will outlast Bush, Scape. If it does that, there is at least a chance for meaningful reforms. If they do manage reforms, then the UN can and will survive.

The thing they really have to do is take away the vetos though and, while every country with a veto will tell you why the others don't deserve one, none of the permanent five is likely to give up that little perk.

If the UN should fail though, it is very likely that the world will quickly band into groups of nations. Depending on the dynamics of those groups, that could very well mitigate the powers of the large nations. The US is already failing and China's growth depends a lot on energy and food from developing nations as well as access to markets in the developed world.

That could throw a lot of the power back to South America and Africa and they have interests that are more than economic.

[Vanni_Fucci]

Pathos wrote:

Quote:

The war is illegal.

Prove it.

You insist on shouting this across the myriad of lefty boards you post on, so prove it. Put up or shut up.

For the benefit of those who have difficulty in researching this matter, and for those that do not have the capacity to discuss this intelligently, I provide the following:

http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

The following link may help you in your quest for truth:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/is ... windex.htm

Keep your head out of the sand, and have a nice day

[Scape]

If the UN loses the US the UN will be irrelevant irregardless of whatever reforms are proposed. South America is indeed a rising power, especially with Brazil and it's missile and nuclear programs. So to is China and it demands will set the tempo of the new economy.

The greatest power of the UN is the power to counter world terror. Right now the US says the terrorists are on the run, they are not they are on the move. They say they hate their freedoms and the US is the primary targets, they do not, they are attacking the policies and the primary target is Europe, not the US. The US said that the majority of the terrorist leadership has been killed or captured, but the terrorists are a grass roots world wide insurgency not a higharchy and their goal is to radicalize Islam.

Americas plan has fanned the flames of the insurgency and can not hope to contain the spreading of a grass roots resistance, especially not without the help of international power. The Spanish train bombing and the Beslan school bombing are clear indicators that the war on terror is not under control and Iraq is not the front line. Africa will indeed have demands of it's own and they will be Islamic.

[Vanni_Fucci]

Double Post

[Rev_Blair]

You'll find that links are worthless with this bunch Vanni Fucci...they don't read them, then put up an Ann Coulter column as a rebuttal. Keep putting them up though, I enjoy them.


The UN lost the US about four years ago, Scape. The Bush regime has never had a real interest in negotiating or acting in a multilateral manner. The question is whether the UN can get the US back. To do that they have to survive another 4 years. If the US puts in another bunch of unilateralist idiots at the end of that, then the UN should give up on that and concentrate on working with multi-lateral countries.

I do think the UN can survive without the US but that requires others, including middle powers like Canada, stepping up to the plate. American military power will ebb with its economic power. It will always have nukes, but the US ability to invade and occupy countries effectively has been shown to be a sham in Iraq.

There's a lot of qualifiers there, but I do think that there are enough countries around the world that are growing tired of being dominated by the US that they can save the UN.

[Scape]

The UN is the only tool we have to defeat terror. If the UN is to save itself and redeem itself in the eyes of the Americans it has to justifiably demonstrate this capability. The veto process is a two edged sword. It keeps the countries in while still being able to disagree but it also kills initiative that is required for policies such as defeating terror to be pursued.

The chief UN weakness is it cannot react to policies spawned from the tactics of preemptive policy making. For example: when the environment movement sounded the alarm of global warming in the 1990's they had to use this tactic to raise awareness of the issue even though the worst case scenarios projecting global warming would not have serious adverse affect for at least 100 years, they had to make the issue important now for if we waited 100 years to react it would be far to late. The US has used this same tactic to pursue it's war on terror with the idea that to react too late would result in a mushroom cloud in Manhattan. In either case the UN bureaucratic inertia is such it can not effectively react to such a threat and with the veto such as it is they would have endless committees rather than resolutions. So we effectively have two wrongs here: US unilateralism or UN inertia, neither is an effective tool to combat the threat but currently it is all we have. The US tactic is actually exacerbating the problem just as bad as the UN inaction is helping to embolden the terrorists except the US tactic has the added attribute of further radicalizing Islam against the west.

The terrorists are taking advantage of this fully by driving a wedge between the US and the EU and that is why they are focused on the EU not the US as they have far more to gain from an attack in Spain or Indonesia then they ever would in New York at this point. Whereas the policy's in the US can be sold with little to no argument in the US in Europe it is a much different story. They still believe in international law and the idea of equalization of geo-political areas. This would require the US to share power with the world and in the US that will never fly. The EU also treats terrorists as criminals whereas the US treats terrorists as enemy combatants that are not subject to right under law and can are are tortured. The spin in the media is that torture is not systematic and only a few rotten apples are guilty of this but only Americans actually believe this. Popular EU opinion is against Bush but they are not anti-American. This is creating a new EU that is focused on being self sufficient and for the 1st time since Caesar the EU can be truly self sufficient with eastern Europe providing the resources and the west providing the industry. Thus the EU can lock out the US. Much to Putin's dismay, Ukraine will be drawn into the EU and unless he intervenes militarily, nothing can stop this slide. The EU will rise regardless of it's aging demographics. It's debt to GDP ratio will draw far more investment than the sagging greenback and thus the terrorists tactics of divide and conquer will work to counter US policies of unilateralism without consequences.

[RoyalHighlander]

You can thanks Rev Blair and 2Cdo for the closure of this thread,, They were aksed to tone down the flaming but continued to flame.. so................