Search results

If this medal is actually bestowed by your Congress, I can't believe you morons actually think it's appropriate to have your country glorify this shameful, illegal attack.

Yeah, that 1983 cleansing was brutal...

Why aren't Candletrader's posts being deleted? Come on Babak, start earning your keep!

Don't worry TM, within 100 years, white's will be the minority in America; you'll get your break.

I'd be happy not to have to worry about your internal politics, but -- as I've said a hundred times -- your internal politics have a major bearing on what occurs outside your country.

What utter bullshit. How long do you think you can keep leaning on the "they hate us" propaganda for, when the weight of evidence against is overwhelming? Canada, Norway, Holland, New Zealand -- and many others -- have these freedoms you say "they" hate, I don't see those countries being...

The Democrat party needs to take a long, hard look at itself. The way it caved in --and sold out -- to the mass hysteria the Bush camp manufactured was a shameful..

What a wonderful idea Optional. Hand out an award of 'honor' to a participant in an aggressive, illegal attack on a sovereign nation. I suppose Saudi Arabia should award Mohammed Atta and co then?

We'll see in 50 years who needs who.

No doubt he is. I wonder how he'd stack up against James Crawford, Professor of International Law at Cambridge, who has no doubt this war has no legal basis in existing SC resolutions.

Maybe, but I would do it anyway, just to expose the US as the number 1 perpetrator of illegal international acts that it is. It looks like the end of the Cold War was the worst thing to happen for the 200 other countries besides America. At least back then international outrages like would...

What about Echotrader? Does that also use Hyperfeed? Has it always been that bad? I was under the impression Hyperfeed was a quality service.

Article 51 is the first step. Since it will obviously be vetoed, the next step is to appeal to the General Assembly under Resolution 377 'Uniting For Peace'; whose purpose is the maintanence of peace where there is lack of unanimity in the permanent members of the Security Council and a threat...

So I'm absolutely stunned that he would find it legal. :) And in Skeptic's own words, "Courts decide legality, not legal experts".

Exactly. So they then take it to the General Assembly -- where it can't be vetoed -- and where, given the unanimous international outrage over American belligerence, it would be a shoe in to get the required 2/3rds vote. And Skeptic, and anyone else that wants to respond, is it really too...

Given that the US, Britain and Australia have undertaken an attack on a Member State of the United Nations without Security Council authorisation, could not Iraq appeal to the UN under Chapter 7, Article 51 of the UN charter? Why not? They are a Member State no? Wouldn't the Security...

Excellent interview. Ritter answers questions at the Alberta Intermedia Centre. It's presented as a series of MP3s, and I recommend listening to them as the text version is incomplete and far too brief. Ritter Interview

Oops, my mistake. That should be Katz, not Katzenburg! Amazon Reviews

TrendFader, it's always a good laugh to read your posts. It's hilarious the way you gun down any opposition to your point of view! I wonder, are you trying to convince others... or yourself? One can spend a lot of time debating which is more important, entry or exit, but I doubt...

I'm not sure that you get it Bung -- it's unconstitutional to "weight it" at all.