On Oct 21, 3:57 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wy wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 7:53 am, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>6280 Dead, 1423 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
> >>>On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:30:24 -0400, Vandar wrote:
>
> >>>>6280 Dead, 1423 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:54:48 -0400, Vandar wrote:
>
> >>>>>>6280 Dead, 1423 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:28:13 -0400, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>wy wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>On Oct 20, 3:32 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>6280 Dead, 1423 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:06:15 -0700 (PDT), wy <w...@myself.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>On Oct 20, 12:20 pm, David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On 10/20/2011 10:50 AM, 6280 Dead, 1423 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:43:39 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What troubles me about this issue is that NATO and the USA
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>seem to have developed a policy ov intervening in internal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>fights. Libya has never been a threat to NATO, and yet NATO
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>found it necessary to enter the fight.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, Libya supported the Pan-Am bomber, but as I recall, he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>was caught, and imprisoned for his crime. Was our intervention
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>truly called for?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, what DO you think of this notion that western nations
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>have the right to overthrow and kill foreign leaders of whom
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>they don't approve?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>To what, specifically, are you referring?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Something to keep in mind if the Canadian government is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>compelled to arrest George W. Bush on war crime charges.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Which will not happen. For Canada to do such, would constitute,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>in my opinion, an act of war.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Bush is a private citizen not worth going to war over. Get real
> >>>>>>>>>>>>some day, will you?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Good luck getting the US population to chant "Free George or
> >>>>>>>>>>>Fight!"
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>I think quite a few Americans would consider the arrest justified.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>And the people that matter would consider it a violation of US law.
>
> >>>>>>>>>What's the law and how does it trump Canadian law? Your laws begin
> >>>>>>>>>and end at your borders.
>
> >>>>>>>>Then I guess your Canadian laws don't apply to the actions of a US
> >>>>>>>>citizen regarding Iraq. Canada has no jurisdiction.
>
> >>>>>>>Canada by treaty is a signator to international law, which DOES have
> >>>>>>>jurisdiction.
>
> >>>>>>Not over Americans, it doesn't.
>
> >>>>>Yes, it does. Oh, don't worry; they can't come in American territory
> >>>>>and snatch war criminals off the streets. But they can arrest and try
> >>>>>Americans who stray into nations that honor their treaties.
>
> >>>>Not according to US law, they can't. But it's irrelevant, the Canadian
> >>>>government has already such talk is meaningless. Besides, Bush is
> >>>>already there. Already gave his speech. He's probably headed home by
> >>>>now.
> >>>>It's over. Done. Does not apply.
>
> >>>Bubbles, try to understand: US law doesn't apply in Canada. It's a
> >>>different country.
>
> >>And Canadian law doesn't apply in the US... or Iraq.
>
> > Nobody said it applies in the US or Iraq. You're simply twisting the
> > whole point of the discussion into something it's not about because
> > you know you're at the losing end of it and you're feebly trying to
> > get the upper hand.
>
> Yeah, that's what happened.
You've got that right.
>
> > The point is that US law doesn't apply in Canada
> > and if Canada wanted to apprehend Bush, it could very well have done
> > it, pure and simple, and the US could've done nothing about it but
> > squawk.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong. Ask the Canadian government. They'll agree
> with everything I said.
I did. And they thought you were stupid.
>
> >>>Now, personally, I'm sorry Canada didn't arrest his murderous ass, but I
> >>>knew that Harper and his government are pretty deficient, so I didn't
> >>>have high hopes.
>
> >>You're sorry that Canada didn't violate US sovereignty?
>
> > US sovereignty has no sovereignty in Canada.
>
> That's what you think. You are completely ignorant of both countries.
Then ejakayte me, Billy-Bob. Let's see what next fiction you can come
up with that I just keep shooting down with my slingshot.