Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:32
VIEWED: 15590
PAGE 13 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
While the conservatives are a mass of American bum lickers who cannot be allowed into power ( thats why I voted for the Green Party, so they'd get my two bucks ) I do agree with them on several key issues in the domestic agenda.
And because of people like you the Green Party now has offical party status and government funding :biggring: This is needed and I for one am looking forward to see how they'll do in the next couple of elections. It'll give a much needed voice for those that actually like the enviornment and wish for Kyoto to be implemented. I would've voted for them if I wasn't so scared about the Conservatives.
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
pro privitization : Has already happened ( private clinics in Quebec, Ontario, BC, etc), we simply have to strike the correct balance. For example, if health Canada decides that in Manitoba, it costs X number of dollars to perform a medical procedure in a public facility, would it be wrong to allow a private facility ( same or better standard of service ) to perform the same procdure for X dollars paided by the healthcare system ? I don't agree with additional user fees, que jumping, etc, but if a doctor with the qualifications, could start his own clinic, regulated by Government inspection, and still make money doing it at the same cost... Why the hell not. The only ones this could effect negitively is the unions who I think have too much control in Healthcare anyway.
The problem here is that Health Canada would have to make regular checkups to make sure that these clinics aren't cutting any corners, etc. Which would cost the tax payer.... Another problem is finding that balance. I for one look down South and see the ridiculus things going on there and shutter. I, quite frankly, am pretty happy with what I have. I just believe that there needs to be some sort of reform to stream line the system (ie bloted admin.).
I for one am not "pro union" as I believe that in most cases today unions have to right to be where they are, but things like this scare me as it is a few steps closer to what the americans have. And we all know that those that get and inch will typically take a mile.
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
As for anti gay marrage, I myself don't like the courts ( a stacked Liberal appointed court at that ) making the law. I am neutral in this issue, but feel strongly that we have Parliment to debate and make law, and a judicial system to intrepret and reject laws passed which do not conform to the standards of the charter of rights and freedoms. End runs like this shouldn't be
Well, the charter prohibits denying gays the right to marrage. So wouldn't it be prudent to give them the right to do so instead of going through make a anti law and then having it struck down by an argument based on the charter? Seems to me that'd save *a lot* of time and money.
Plus many provinces (including my own) have already "legalized" it
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
As it is we have the provinces jumping into Federal issues, the Feds trying to dictate provincial issues...........
I agree that there does need to be a clearer definition of who plays what roles where.
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Thats why we need a clean sweep, the system is too self absorbed to change without a hell of a push.
I think most Canadians half heartedly follow this system simply not to be American.
Name me a system that doesn't resist change.
I actually like the system we have here. I know it's not exactly perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what I've seen in *a lot* of places around the world (glass half full).
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
And because of people like you the Green Party now has offical party status and government funding :biggring: This is needed and I for one am looking forward to see how they'll do in the next couple of elections. It'll give a much needed voice for those that actually like the enviornment and wish for Kyoto to be implemented. I would've voted for them if I wasn't so scared about the Conservatives.
While I like the idea of Kyoto, there is many things I dislike about it. The current plan needs to be changed to protect the countrys who sign on from having to put themselves at an economic disadvantage from not signing polluter countrys. In addition I'm am not really sure of the " credits " system for developing economys, but I am at a loss to suggest anything better without doing alot more reading. Sad thing is the Conservatives have it right in many places, if our system allowed us to fire our MPs if they vote out of line with the wishes of their riding perhaps we would get actual repersentation than having to vote for party dogma.
Quote:
The problem here is that Health Canada would have to make regular checkups to make sure that these clinics aren't cutting any corners, etc. Which would cost the tax payer.... Another problem is finding that balance. I for one look down South and see the ridiculus things going on there and shutter. I, quite frankly, am pretty happy with what I have. I just believe that there needs to be some sort of reform to stream line the system (ie bloted admin.).
Our public system needs these same checkup, and they are not being done very well. What I would suggest is Health Canada sticks to
1) Inspection and Licensing of Facilitys
2) Setting Licensing Standards for Personnel
3) Drug testing and Licensing
4) Research and Development
Let the province handle the application and simply do inspections and Investigations. By having the Inspection mandate seperate from the Provinces mandate to provide service, we will have less conflicts and hopefully less politics.
Without the redundecy of Admin and other areas, this may even be revenue neutral, but ensuring safe Medicine is a priority, and from reading the news, I think a better job could be done.
Quote:
I for one am not "pro union" as I believe that in most cases today unions have to right to be where they are, but things like this scare me as it is a few steps closer to what the americans have. And we all know that those that get and inch will typically take a mile.
Limits must be set, but not at the expense of constructive change
Quote:
Well, the charter prohibits denying gays the right to marrage. So wouldn't it be prudent to give them the right to do so instead of going through make a anti law and then having it struck down by an argument based on the charter? Seems to me that'd save *a lot* of time and money.
Plus many provinces (including my own) have already "legalized" it
Because our system is suppose to have Parliment write the laws and then be accountable for them.
The way we appoint Judges, is also a concern, could Martin or anyone really bypass the system and put a law through by simply having the court do it...
Beside, that is why we have MPs. If only they would act in a timely matter to issues such as this one, or for that matter the child porn issue the courts struck down six years ago, that they still haven't addressed. Yet more reason we need reforms.....
Quote:
Name me a system that doesn't resist change.
I actually like the system we have here. I know it's not exactly perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what I've seen in *a lot* of places around the world (glass half full).
Imagine something like this system for Canada :
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/swiss-canton-system.html
I think Quebec... hell everyone would have few objections. Well everyone except Federal Politicians as I think they may
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First, under what terms of the US Constitution did President Bush embark non an illegal war? I dare say, you cant find any abuse of presidential powers, as outlined there and supplementary powers granted him by the War Powers Act.
Second, in what LEGAL manner do you say that this was an OBVIOUSLY illegal war? I am under the impression that there still existed a state of war between the UN-authorized forces from 1991, and that Iraq was in MAJOR breach of the truce terms which it signed. Please cite ANY international authority that sows the continuation of the the Gulf War was illegal, or that the US was NOT operating under the authority of UNSec Resolution 1441, since it was ENFORCING the terms and conditions of an Article 7 Binding Resolution, to which the UNSECCOUCIL unanimously agreed to. Are you saying that it's ILLEGAL to enforce the will of an Articel 7 resolution, which says BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY? I sincerely doubt that.
let's roll
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by xkxxkx:
First, under what terms of the US Constitution did President Bush embark non an illegal war? I dare say, you cant find any abuse of presidential powers, as outlined there and supplementary powers granted him by the War Powers Act.
The US Constitution is irrelavant, this discusion concerns International Law. If your President had of declared war, and not tried to use the UN as justification, we would be having a different conversation.
Quote:
Second, in what LEGAL manner do you say that this was an OBVIOUSLY illegal war? I am under the impression that there still existed a state of war between the UN-authorized forces from 1991, and that Iraq was in MAJOR breach of the truce terms which it signed. Please cite ANY international authority that sows the continuation of the the Gulf War was illegal, or that the US was NOT operating under the authority of UNSec Resolution 1441, since it was ENFORCING the terms and conditions of an Article 7 Binding Resolution, to which the UNSECCOUCIL unanimously agreed to. Are you saying that it's ILLEGAL to enforce the will of an Articel 7 resolution, which says BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY? I sincerely doubt that.
The enforcement of a United Nations resolution would have to be done by a UN force, which your Coalition is not. In Korea, after the North attacked MacArthur was appointed UN commander in the area, this gave him the authority to act in the name of the United Nations. What the US did in Iraq on its own, outside of International Law, for its own selfish purposes. Thats why I for one say, nobody should help. Even if Kerry is elected. No money, troops or support for the American occupation forces.
When a dog pisses on the floor, sometimes you have to rub their noses in it so they don't do it again !
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When you call for an impeachment, the Constitution becomes glaringly relevant.
Your ignorance to that matter is only surpassed by your ignorance of Intl. law and your ignorance of what the un resolutions say, which is that ANY member nation may enforce said resolutions by ANY means necessary. is there anything unclear about this, or must i continue to rub your nose in it?
let's roll
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your countrymen want him impeached, I say just shoot the fucker, save the cost of the trial.
As for you other statement show me where it says one member of the UN has the authority to do anything on its own accord, against the clear wishes of a majority of the security council, on invented evidence...
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Show me the line...
" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
it appears the waters don't run very deep here so my stay will be brief if i'm to maintain sanity.
here boy! see? good boy! there's an entire resolution devoted to giving any member state the ability to use any means necessary to uphold 660 or any subsequent resolution. this includes 1441 and 16 others. wipe thyat piss off of your snout and go read the un charter, it also implores other member to aid any member using any means necessary.
let's roll
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You want to let me know where you live,
I would like to buy Bin Laden and his boys some airplane tickets...
And by the way, don't be pissed at me, I'm just a civilian contractor
" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
where do i live? obviously, to the right, and above you.
let's roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Imagine something like this system for Canada :
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/swiss-canton-system.html
Bookmarked and will be read later.
I would think that we both agree that there *is* a need to "clean up" our system and that we just have different ideas of how to go about that. Since this discussion is quite off topic let's just leave it at that.
And to Xkxxkx. Didn't 1441 just state that dire consequences would happen. At any rate I remember that the resolution was very non-specific about said consequences, no timeline was given, etc.
So then, how was the US acting under this resolution? Especially since pretty much everyone in the rest of the world disagreed with the invasion. Doesn't exactly look like an act of teh UN when the UN didn't approve.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME