Why canada sounds so awsome

Naturally successful negotiations have a mediator, but the UN only has leverage in that position when they are supported by the powerful nations like the US. Negotiations are only successful when there is incentive. The burden on political power that other nations (mediators) have can weigh heavily upon the negotiating parties. And that is usually how things get done. That system works like gangbusters on the smaller nations.

The problem is, when the larger nations are the negotiating parties (random example: US and China) neither is likely to give much mind to the UN because they hold the cards. It makes it difficult for the UN to accomplish anything when the big fish are at odds with each other. You need bargaining power to get something to go your way. The UN loses that when the larger nation jump ship. The UN has done some good, but I do not think its is as effective as it could be. How exactly it could be improved, I not sure, but I do not believe the UN model is ideal. All it takes is one powerful rouge nation (happened before) and the system fails.

That’s why I place little faith in the UN when it comes to foreign policies of the major players.

------------------------

Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?

A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'

-kamikaze

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**
 
Wrong.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

------------------------

Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?

A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'

-kamikaze

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**
 
no

Wayne Toups kicks balls

~jeffrey

Theres a taiga in the woods!

~Jeffrey

If I had a billion dollars, I would make Alan Bille the King of Spain.

~cal

 
Skibum, I don't think it is fair to only point out the U.S. when talking about the U.N. I don't really think any of those five are any better than the other.

Secondly, I find it somewhat contradicting when you give the U.N. props for finally getting the vote in South Africa, when the Iraqies where, similarily, allowed to do that as well for - was it the first time ever? Obviously the situations are different, but sometimes I feel that credit should be given where credit is due.

signatures are for pussies

 
I think the difference is that the president of south africa ended up being someone who wasn't a vice president of an american oil company previously, but instead, Nelson Mandela, a man who fought and suffered for the rights and freedoms for the people of South Africa. See the difference? I never solely pointed the finger at the US, the US is just in my opinion, the one who should recieve the majority of the pointing.

DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW

Like a virgin on prom night.

Ottawa
 
Quinny, the argument you seemed to be making earlier was that because there have historically been no laws pertaining to war, the notion that there should be now doesn't make sense to you. I'd just like to point out that that argument is a load of dingo's kidneys... are you honestly saying that the concept of legality, and of morality in general, haven't progressed over the centuries? The Geneva Conventions (which Mr. Bush explicitly says he has the right to ignore), the Rome Statute (which the US still refuses to sign) and similar advances have not been at ALL meaningless, they are a step towards decreasing bloodshed, not idealist rhetoric. This whole "this is the way it's always been, there is no moral or legal progress" standpoint is honestly more than a little disturbing. In fact, the major right-wing-law argument in FAVOUR of the legality of the Iraq war is that the U.N. resolution from the first Gulf War should be considered to still be in effect! You seem to have found yourself in something of a catch 22... your side's best justification is a ten year old resolution made by a body that you fail to recognize as even remotely important in world politics.

Whoops.

If you really want to look into this, beyond a superficial "there are no laws in war" perspective (which to be honest detracts greatly from your credibility as a debator on this subject, despite your several good arguments, so take this as a suggestion and not an insult), I suggest you browse through a few of the 2003 - 2004 issues of the American Journal of International Law (http://www.asil.org/ajil/ajilindx.htm) and the European Journal of International Law (http://www.ejil.org/). Also check out From "9-11" to the "Iraq War 2003" : international law in an age of complexity" by Dominic McGoldrick which a university library should have.

 
Actually you missed my point by a mile.

It is a noble ambition to create a humane standard for the world. But it’s not realistic to believe that everyone will follow it. And Bush actually has NOT ignored the Geneva Conventions, though he can if he so wishes. But regardless, people often do things in their best interest. Implied rules are not a deterrent if they can’t be enforced. If nations want to practice inhumane treatment, they do as they please if there are minimal repercussions.

That’s not “disturbing,� it’s the reality.

The only thing that “laws� like that do, is force a double standard to the people that follow them. Policies like those that where implemented at the Geneva Conventions are a fantastic in theory, but they can’t really be enforced and that is why those “laws� do not work except for the people that acknowledge them. I’m not saying they are bad, but you need to realize that not everyone will follow these guidelines.

2 + 2 = 4

If you would like to find information regarding the Geneva Conventions, consult this:

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Rules hold little water in war. I don’t care who you are, but that has been, and will always be the truth of it.

------------------------

Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?

A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'

-kamikaze

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**
 
it is pretty hypocritical that the US enforces these "laws" upon other nations but then ignores them when they wish.

DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW

Like a virgin on prom night.

Ottawa
 
The reason it's disturbing is that you actually believe that it is a hard unchangeable reality. That is most assuredly not the case. The enforcement of certain standards over time CAN have an effect provided we aren't as callous and dismissive as you're being right now. Painful methods of torture, for example, were long thought to be perfectly acceptable... they're the enemy, why not make them suffer in order to gain information that our side can use? Well, it's simply no longer acceptable, and the global outrage and trials following the Abu Ghirab incident can certainly support that fact. This is simply an example, if we stress that conflicts, even ones which involve the use of force, are to be resolved in a certain way, those standards will begin to have an impact on a global stage. Extolling an attitude of "nothing will ever change" is an impedence to global moral and legal political progress rather than an acceptance of "reality", and it's an oversimplified and narrow way of looking at the world.

 
Supporting my point. Laws mean little if there is not a means to enforce them.

------------------------

Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?

A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'

-kamikaze

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**
 
Leading by example is your point. I understand that, and I believe it has value. Like I said however, war is chaotic. It’s imposable to have complete control, and is often why war happens. It is naive to think that total effect will happen. Playing dirty is taboo, but somebody is always going to cross the line. Look at "cut and run" militia warfare. It has long been consider underhanded and unfair, but was won at times.

An absolute is unachievable, and that why I believe you are being naive.

------------------------

Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?

A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'

-kamikaze

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**
 
so are you supposing that since the absolute is unachievable that it shouldn't be attempted? that's a little disconcerning.

-----------------------------------------
-----

"When I'm horny like thirsty, She's a bottle of water."
 
So you are putting words in my mouth and assuming how or what I think? That’s a little disappointing.

------------------------

Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?

A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'

-kamikaze

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**
 
I wasn't assuming anything, i was just asking a question to the purpose of your argument. I'm sorry you're disappointed.

-----------------------------------------
-----

"When I'm horny like thirsty, She's a bottle of water."
 
how's this for leading by example??

- 29 have been accused of spousal abuse

- 7 have been arrested for fraud

- 19 have been accused of writing bad checks

- 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

- 3 have done time for assault

- 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

- 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

- 8 have been arrested for shoplifting

- 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

- 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Can you guess which organization this is?

Give up yet?

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group of idiots that crank

-----------------------------------------
-----

"When I'm horny like thirsty, She's a bottle of water."
 
This looks like another miss here.

You know what’s so cute about stats like that in the first place? They are often grossly exaggerated or wrong.

I will give you a dollar for each member of congress you can accordingly match with those stats. You also must be able to present evidence to support those stats.

------------------------

Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?

A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'

-kamikaze

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**
 
Oh, you want absolute proof?? Well, i just did what the US gov't did in a sense. Took (potentially) false documents and used them to my advantage.

;)

and Jim Moran was accused of beating his wife according to

George Bush.. well, we don't need to mention his checkered past..

granted the article by capitalblue.com (which i'm sure you've googled already) is biased but not totally untrue. check it out, email them if you want.

and if that's wrong, why isn't justifying a war to the world based on false documents?

http://chblue.com/aug1999/081699/criminalclass1%2D081699.htm

-----------------------------------------
-----

"When I'm horny like thirsty, She's a bottle of water."
 
Honestly, I never even heard of “Capital Hill Blue� until you posted that link.

It’s garbage. They don’t even cite their stats or information. The fact that you use that polarized hack political “journal,� voids a good deal of credibility in your opinion.

Justifying a war based on false documents? I think you are on the wrong page again.

------------------------

Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?

A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'

-kamikaze

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**
 
The Senate Intelligence Committee report — which said most of the pre-war claims were not supported — cited various reports that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/12/iraq/main628789.shtml

.. unsupported documents at that scale without backing them up?? somebody was incredibly cocky, dumb or blind.. or maybe they had to be for some reason..

Well.. there's also the Downing Street memos which confirmed that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4101420.stm

--In a second memo, "UK ministers were told that they had no choice but to find a way to make the war in Iraq legal."--

other articles of notice on the topic of false documents/intelligence:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4634901.stm

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/28/kay_testifies040128

Lying to the public is nothing new in war though:

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m12510&l=i&size=1&hd=0

-----------------------------------------
-----

"When I'm horny like thirsty, She's a bottle of water."
 
That’s nothing new. I thought everybody knew about the misrepresented intelligence. There was intelligence from multiple countries that suggested something was in Iraq (US, Russia, Germany, and UK to name a few). Most sources, as far was we know, confirmed that Iraq has something. Not to mention that they had used chemical weapons before. The writing seemed on the wall in 2002. It is still possible that Iraq did have WMD at the time, but they where given ample time but the US and UN to hide/get rid of it.

One of the articles you use even quotes as saying "This was a global intelligence failure," if you would call it that. Those articles still assume a bit too much without confirmation...just like those accused intelligence documents.

There where also other reasons for going into Iraq, weapon risk was only one. Just use the search button to find my other posts. I really don’t feel like typing 6+ pages again explaining why.

And that fifth link is bullshit to boot. Try and be more objective when looking at sites like that. Its as bullet proof as Swiss cheese.

------------------------

Q: How many NS.com members does it take to answer a simple question?

A: 10. One to answer, three to say 'How fucking stupid are you?', three to say 'This has already been asked a thousand times', and three to say 'Who the fuck cares anyway?'

-kamikaze

**Proud member of the d-loc fanclub**
 
oui oui, id just like to point out that the UN got fucked over by greed, and that is to say that five countries, i wont point fingers but i think you might be able to guess them, gave themselves a special

power to stop any military actions they didnt like. This power was abused in teh suez canal crisis and the coreen war in which britain, france and china abused the power.

And i read through the first page and wanted to add a bit to that stuff;

canada should not have joined the war,

the us is ten times the size of can (not to mention ten times as arrogant),

the Un was trying to be effective in stopping a war but the us undermined the friggin rules it fought to establish, and it is my opinion that the us should be removed from the security council because they

abuse the system.

Im not saying that saddam didnt have weaps of mass destruction but if they did saddam wasnt a fanatic, he wouldnt have died for the cause in my opinion and so he wouldnt have used them(again(the kurds)). Teh fact that the us lent saddam a billion to fight iran while saddam was gassing some kurds up the river is friggin disgusting.

and that concludes my rant

///////////////////////////////////////i am Sum Ting Wong praise me- Sum Ting Wong july 5th 2004 CANADA KICKS ASSS
 
id rather live in california than ottawa

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

When your not sure about something, just HUCK IT!
 
isnt it a tribute to congress that our govnt is that bad ass and we r still number 1?

whats your name?

whose you daddy?

is he rich like me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top