Let me rephrase that..spent a good portion of my life traveling to Canada.
Kitchner, Waterloo, Guelph, Hamilton (almost played for the Steelhawks), TO, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie (lots of time there), North Bay, Windsor (lots of time there), Quebec, Granby, Victoriaville, Chicoutami, Drummond, Mississauga, Chatham, Markham, and a whole bunch of other places I cant remember. I have also spent time in Cranbrook B.C. and Calgary.
You have not yet refuted any of my facts...and it pisses you off that you can't. Too bad.
Here are some more facts for you...members of the Obama administration are on record in agreement with the Bush actions.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it Punter. :howdy: :lol:
=============
Legal Basis for Possible Use of Force."
A more recent explanation of the US position was given in an interview that occurred immediately after the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1154 which endorsed the Annan Agreement and warned of "severest consequences" for any violation. A recorded version of this interview was obtained from the website operated by ABC News:
CHRIS WALLACE: With us from our New York bureau, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Bill RICHARDSON.
Mr. Ambassador, the Security Council did not give the US the automatic trigger to strike if Iraq violates the agreement, but as we just said, the word from the State Department is the resolution doesn't matter. Does the US have to go back to the UN before launching a military strike?
BILL RICHARDSON (New York): No, we don't Chris. It's always been America's position that there was sufficient authority in existing Security Council resolutions for us to take such unilateral action. What happened today in the Security Council, 15-0, only reinforces that position, because if you look at the language in the resolution, it says that if Iraq fails to comply, it will be hit with the severest consequences. Other states had wanted to water that down. We won a big victory today. Basically, the onus is now on Iraq. If they mess around with the secretary general's agreement, if they fail to provide unfettered, unconditional access to all sites, that's a violation and there will be some very, very severe consequences.[12]
The Canadian government has explained its reasons for supporting the US position in several speeches given by the Prime Minister and others.[13] On the issue of the legal authority of the US to proceed without a new resolution from the Security Council, Mr. Ted McWhinney, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, gave the following explanation during a debate in Parliament:
There has been some discussion on the legal authority of the United States and by the same token those associated or allied with the United States to take action involving the potential use of force against Iraq. It has been said "You must go to the security council and get a fresh resolution."
I do not think that it is so as a matter of legal interpretation. In fact the gulf operation was rather special. It was undertaken by a government on Canada's part previous to the present one, and the United States by a president previous to the present president. What was done was a little different from classic UN peacekeeping operations or peacemaking operations where in fact there is a UN force under the aegis of the UN secretary-general and responsible to the secretary-general.
In fact what was done was a series of umbrella resolutions delegating the power to the United States commander in chief and responsible to the president of the United States. I say that was an unusual action but the series of resolutions have a broad, legal authority for which I think it can reasonably be argued that the authority to take the present action is there.
12. <A href="http://www.abcnews.com/onair/nightline/html_files/transcripts/nt10302.html" target=_blank>http://www.abcnews.com/onair/nightline/html_files/transcripts/nt10302.html
13. The speech by the Right Honorable Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada, delivered during a debate in the House of Commons on 26 February 1998: House of Commons Debates. Speech by the Honorable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs, delivered to a meeting in Ottawa on the occasion of the launch of the final report of the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, 17 February 1998, DFAIT Statements: 98/9.
14. Canada, House of Commons, debates 26 February 1998.
15. ASIL Flash Insight: "The Legal Background On The Use Of Force To Induce Iraq To Comply With Security Council Resolutions," by Frederic L. Kirgis, November 1997. Reproduced in Appendix 4.
16. New York Times, 5 February 1998, pg. A.6, "UN Resolutions Allow Attack On The Like Of Iraq."
17. New York Times, 7 February 1998, pg. A5, "The Issues Are Political More Than Legal At The UN."
18. New York Times, 4 February 1998, "U.S. Citing Its Authority In 1991 Congress Measure."
What truth? You haven't provided anything resembling truth..or fact.
All you have is rants and your biased delusional opinion. Who cares?
You've been bitch slapped...stand up and show us your truth with FACTS.
"crickets"
He he...I'll call you out as well.
Specifically...what word play?
You need facts as well. :aktion033
and this means what again?
simple things for simple minds
do you have a thought you'd like to share?
L
I'd have thought that MY thought was crystal clear, but, since you're a brain dead prick, I'll put it more succinctly: when it comes to the political landscape, you couldn't find your own dick with two hands and a map...:finger::toast::nohead:
I blame the media, which never questioned a thing the Bush administration did until that Iraq party was over.
Not a squeak of dissent.
The US media is guilty of being an accomplice in a conspiracy to defraud the American people.
Even douchebag lobbyists like Jack Abramoff knew Iraq was going down long before it happened, almost 12 months before the Iraq invasion if memory serves.
The Iraq scam was common knowledge amongst the political elite in Washington, and there's no way that the media didn't know what was going on.
Not a squeak of dissent.
The US media is guilty of being an accomplice in a conspiracy to defraud the American people.
Even douchebag lobbyists like Jack Abramoff knew Iraq was going down long before it happened, almost 12 months before the Iraq invasion if memory serves.
The Iraq scam was common knowledge amongst the political elite in Washington, and there's no way that the media didn't know what was going on.
You do realize that this empty rhetoric built on childish debating techniques no longer work, right? It only makes you look like a complete idiot considering most Americans know the truth now, you sound like a neocon spokesperson who was found in a time capsule, you are irrelevant, insignificant, out-dated, and no one gives a fuck what you say because it's all so obviously complete horseshit of the highest order. It's really pathetic.
ouch
:lol:
do you think I care what an internet dipshit thinks? especially one as "insightful" as ur uh um you?
Carry on child. Should there be any single issue you care to discuss, I'll be here.
Nah...even members of the Obama administration agree with me. And they are on record...and I have the proof of it.
I have the FACTS...all you have is empty posts.
Here you go...my aptly named DILROD.
Enjoy! :nohead:
Does the US have to go back to the UN before launching a military strike?
BILL RICHARDSON (New York): No, we don't Chris. It's always been America's position that there was sufficient authority in existing Security Council resolutions for us to take such unilateral action. What happened today in the Security Council, 15-0, only reinforces that position, because if you look at the language in the resolution, it says that if Iraq fails to comply, it will be hit with the severest consequences. Other states had wanted to water that down. We won a big victory today. Basically, the onus is now on Iraq. If they mess around with the secretary general's agreement, if they fail to provide unfettered, unconditional access to all sites, that's a violation and there will be some very, very severe consequences.[12] ...
In fact what was done was a series of umbrella resolutions delegating the power to the United States commander in chief and responsible to the president of the United States. I say that was an unusual action but the series of resolutions have a broad, legal authority for which I think it can reasonably be argued that the authority to take the present action is there.
12. <A href="http://www.abcnews.com/onair/nightline/html_files/transcripts/nt10302.html" target=_blank>http://www.abcnews.com/onair/nightline/html_files/transcripts/nt10302.html
16. New York Times, 5 February 1998, pg. A.6, "UN Resolutions Allow Attack On The Like Of Iraq."
Gee, that's funny, your first sentence is EXACTLY the point I was making about YOU: you post stupid, inaccurate horseshit with a pompous air as though it's a message from on high, and I felt compelled to mention that many people are firmly convinced that:nohead:
hno::lolBIG: YOU are an internet dipshit-and I gave one of many compelling reasons why that is so.
Gee, that's funny, your first sentence is EXACTLY the point I was making about YOU: you post stupid, inaccurate horseshit with a pompous air as though it's a message from on high, and I felt compelled to mention that many people are firmly convinced that:nohead:
I have to admit, I do have a way with the biggest losers on this forum, but most don't hang around too long, and say about as much as this one does.
Funny thing is, he probably thinks I care.
It's a badge of honor to have dumb and dumber dislike me, carry on.
I have to admit, I do have a way with the biggest losers on this forum, but most don't hang around too long, and say about as much as this one does.
Funny thing is, he probably thinks I care.
It's a badge of honor to have dumb and dumber dislike me, carry on.
Gee, you profess not to care, yet you keep flapping your gums in response. Not to mention you've made a complete fool of yourself for months by your hilariously inaccurate predictions in the face of massive evidence that showed otherwise. Like I've said about others, you're as arrogant as you are stupid... :nohead::missingte:tongue2::finger:
Heres a video about the war and lies that led up to it. Towards the end they talk about the media not doing they're job and the asshole on fox news that kept saying if your against the war then just shut up, O'rielly I think it was anyway I found it to be an interesting viedo.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lies/video.html
