Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Communist phishing expedition | Main | A gutsy move »

Friday, May 12, 2006

What is Warren Kinsella talking about?

In my daily cruise through the Canadian sector of the blogosphere, I came upon this little aside by Warren Kinsella: "Bush’s war in Iraq is illegal."

Now, I recognize that our efforts to liberate Iraq are not very popular up North (and, sadly, it's losing its appeal down here as well).  I also recognize that, unlike Warren, I am no attorney.

That said, on the off-chance Mr. Kinsella looks at this blog (and the off-off-chance he's interested in having a cross-country discussion with an American of whom he's probably never heard), what law does he think the United States broke when it led the multi-national coalition that liberated Iraq from the murderous, terrorist-friendly regime of Saddam Hussein?

Posted by D.J. McGuire on May 12, 2006 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What is Warren Kinsella talking about?:


Good and very logical point.

However, you must know that those on the Left don't need facts or realities to hurl their insults, accusations and general venom at those whom they oppose.

They operate in a sandbox ... they are like kids.

Forgive them for they know not what they do.

Sometimes the men of the Left say whatever they think the chicks of the left want to hear in order get laid. They think like that. It's all about feel good and getting laid after a political rant sure does feel good.

Posted by: Duke McGoo | 2006-05-12 11:23:17 AM

Ok, I know that your post is *really* just an invitation for people to pile on Kinsella to feed a superiority complex, but you did ask a question and here is an answer:

First, I find it odd that this question comes up now. I mean, opponents of the Iraq war in the US and elsewhere have called it "illegal" quite often for years now. But your post makes it sound like this is something new to you or that Kinsella is the first to make the claim. If it is, I am quite surprised. If not, I wonder why Kinsella is presented as any more of a target than anyone else who has called the war "illegal"

Second, three seconds on google (search terms: illegal war Iraq) found these stories that explain the argument. Check them out:

"Iraq war illegal, says Annan" (September 16, 2004) - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
"Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law?" (September 17, 2004) - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm
"Links to Opinions on Legality of War Against Iraq" - http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

These were the top three hits from google. So now I wonder. Do you ask this question about Kinsella because you have never heard this accusation made before and it just never occurred to you to go to google to get the answer? Or is your question insincere and posted as an invitation to bash on Kinsella a bit? I suspect the latter. The replies that will follow in this thread will, no doubt, confirm that. Heck, I even see that Duke has already got that ball rolling.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-05-12 11:39:01 AM

Mark Logan.

I know you feel terrible about poor old Sadam getting bumped, but hey ... that's often the best thing to do to a murderous genocidal tyrant.

However, take heart Jihad fan, I am sure you feel pretty good about the wonderful man heading up Iran at this time and his edging toward the bomb so your side can cause even more destruction to Isreal and well maybe even the great satan too.

Meanwhile you can help ... why not send the financially strapped Hamas a little donation. Your Pal Kofi will appreciate that.

You useful idiot.

Posted by: Duke McGoo | 2006-05-12 11:48:34 AM

Since countries are required to respect one another's sovereignty and territorial integrity in international law, subject to some exceptions, perhaps the proper question is what legal authority did the so-called Coalition of the Willing rely on when it invaded Iraq?

Duke, any deep thoughts on this one? Or are you too busy hurling insults, accussation and general venom and those you oppose?

Posted by: truewest | 2006-05-12 11:49:54 AM


Heh heh... What I *LOVE* about blog "discussions" is that there are always fools like yourself who decide what people think, tell them that they think it, and then deride them for it. If you look back at my previous comment, you will find nowhere in it where I supported the claim that the war in Iraq is "illegal". But mind readers such as yourself don't need people to state an opinion, you can do it for us.

So for the record, do I think that the war in Iraq was "illegal"? Well, I, like D.J. am not a lawyer and don't pretend to understand international law at all, so I have no idea whether or not it was. Do I think that it was a god idea to invade Iraq? Yes, I do. Back before the war began I thought that it was irresponsible of UN members not to authorize a military response as they had in '91. Clearly (to me, anyway), the military response was justified and even required by the situation.

So now you must be confused. What would ANYONE who thinks the war was the right think to do harp on this post as I did? The answer again is simple to understand, even for a simple mind like you. You see, serious issues deserve serious consideration by serious people. People who love to play the "let's bash the liberals for kicks" or "let's bash Bush supporters for kicks" game are worse than idiots - they are (to paraphrase Jon Stewart's infamous words) hurting the world by insisting on playing political "us and them" games rather than treating serious subjects seriously.

If D.J. really wants to have a serious discussion of the issue of whether or not the war in Iraq violated international law, then that would be an interesting discussion. But his post reeks of wanting to play the "us and them" bashing game with Kinsella as today's piñata. Your replies in this thread are just as bad. You are not a serious person with serious thoughts about serious issues. That puts you in the same class with people like James Carville, Michael Moore, Warren Kinsella, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Ezra Levant - six of the least serious people around. The world would be better off if they (and people like you) could understand that the issues are too important to be treated as part of a game.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-05-12 12:16:39 PM

And "Chretien's" bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 -- was that legal?

Posted by: Joan Tintor | 2006-05-12 12:18:56 PM

The battle of Iraq was approved by the US Congress(which is the war making body in the US) and the US Senate which make it legal in the US.

Saddam failed to comply with UNSC resolution 1441 and the other resolutions which brought about the ceasefire in the Gulf War. The invasion of Iraq was entirely legal by these measures of International Law.

Mr. Kinsella, being a lawyer, knows these things.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-05-12 12:33:10 PM

Good Comments Duke.
President Bush attacked Iraq because that thug of a Saddam refused to co-operate with the UN inspectors (by the time the inspectors -collaborators?- from the UN got in there - the inspectors from the UN were part of the U.N. so they were probably not really credible- Saddam had done a lot of mopping up). The Liberano outfit and their greedy allies (France, M. Strong, Germany, Russia and the U.N ) were giving Saddam cash for cheap oil and then turning over the cheap oil on the free market to countries like Great Britain, Australia and the United States. The deal was supposed to be FOOD for oil (should ask the Canadian Wheat Board about that!). Canada's big-shots participated in this egregious propping up of a murderous monster (Saddam) who regularly tortured and slaughtered the starving people in his own country by trading cash instead of food; Saddam used the $$ from oil sales to buy weapons - probably WMD but that is a matter of definition. IMO ALL guns and toxic gas are mass destructive. Even a twenty-two can be a weapon of mass destruction if citizens being attacked to not own or know how to use a gun (don't take a knife to a gun fight, my Dad used to say). It is a lot easier for the self righteous idiots in Canada to sooth their guilt by telling themselves that the war in Iraq is illegal - they do not care about the slaughtered, starved people they care about the wound in their pocket books! The Canadian people need to wake up and take the people who participated in such disgusting deception for profit, at the expense of millions of starving people, to the court and then to the jailhouse. I don't know what our high priestess in Ottawaafi would say about this scandal but I know that most tax paying Canadians would be furious.

Posted by: jema54j | 2006-05-12 12:34:26 PM

Normally, I can have a debate or disagreement with others who have different opinions. However, this is not just another topic of debate. We are in a war for our very survival and when idiots like Mark Logan (well known moon bat) takes the side of our enemies just I lose it.

I see you as a collaborator of the terrorists, just like Kinsella appears to have done. Useful idiots who work against your own. That deserves venom and more.

I will politely debate almost any subject, but I don't debate kindly with collaborators of Islam, or any other faction of the Muslim world.

This is a war fool. I want the West to win.

What do you want?

Posted by: Duke McGoo | 2006-05-12 12:42:08 PM

I take your first point, although domestic is not really at issue here (and calling it the "battle" of Iraq seems euphemistic -- they invaded, pure and simple)

And while I understand your second point, I don't agree that Iraq's breach of a UN resolution provides the necessary justification in international law.

In any case, thanks for making the case, however briefly. It provided a welcome respite from the bluster and blowhardism of some of the other respondents.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-05-12 12:45:42 PM

I call it the 'Battle of Iraq' because it is just one battle in the larger War for the Survival of Civilization.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-05-12 12:49:00 PM

Easy there, Duke.

I can;t speak for Kinsella or Mark (and I won't try), but I would say they're simply wrong-headed. I know nothing about their motives.

That said, the idea that the liberation of Iraq was illegal because the UN Security Council refused to give its imprimatur is not convincing.

I can't speak on Canada's Charter, but the U.S. Constitution makes clear that it, and it alone is "the supreme law of the land," and that no treaty or international compact can overrule it.

Additionally, as I read the UN Charter, nations have a right to self-defense, and I would submit that would include military action against any regime found to be in cooperation with al Qaeda, irrespective of whether or not said regime had foreknowledge of the 9/11/01 attack.

And there was plenty of evidence that Saddam Hussein did cooperate with al Qaeda: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1

Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2006-05-12 12:49:53 PM

Since this posting is by an American, I was going to just keep my mouth shut and watch the Canadian responses roll in, and read them quietly. But I see Mark Logan's assistance and truewest's above, so I can't screw things up too bad.

So, I'll blurt out a thought that hit me after reading Duke McGoo's last paragraph of his first comment, re. "men of the Left say whatever they think the chicks of the left want to hear in order to get laid...".

I recall watching a program on MTV when that was a new TV network (probably fifteen years ago), even before they had Bill Clinton on that network answering a question about what style of underpants he wore.

MTV was supposed to be some sort of a "young people's" TV network. They had this sort of a political "debate" or issues program running with an audience of young college age types.

I watched this program where a young man (looked like a third year college Accounting & Finance major) who was presenting some sort of case on an important issue of the day. I don't remember the issue, it could have been gasoline prices or some welfare program, etc. Anyway this young guy finishes his quite normal and intelligent presentation (which had a politically conservative tone to it), and then openned the floor for questions.

Sitting in the front row was a very nice looking young woman who was dressed like her parents owned Vassar College and she had just graduated with all "A's". This young woman was recognized for her question and she said: "You know, you're never going to get laid, talking like that."

It was incredible. Yet it was entirely prescient with respect to the development of the political "debate" of the Left, at that time and to the present, as well as with respect to the catastrophe of "feminism" (which immediately became Atheism-Communism-total evil) as a possibly fatal attack on our societies.

I'll probably never forget that program (clip), because it is so emblematic of the tragedy of young women (and old stupid "Desparate" women) today being fooled into "thinking" that they are smart to be Leftist pawns-whores.

A Leftist woman can never find a better "husband" than the government. The more they nag and complain, the more "attention" they get, and attention is much more important than realizing that they are being cheated and robbed and used.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-05-12 12:50:26 PM

Oh, and FYI, Mark, I asked my question in the hope that Mr. Kinsella would answer it, and we could debate the evidence. That's all.

Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2006-05-12 12:52:19 PM

Chretien bombed Yugoslavia?

Wow! I'm never too old to learn something new every day.

Canada may have been better off if he was strapped onto one of the bombs like the guy in Dr. Strangelove.

I agree it was strange for NATO, an organization purportedly set up to protect Europe from invasion of the godless commies of the Soviet Union, to be bombing a country that was a satellite of the aforementioned godless commies.

But then, when you consider Milosevic was a godless commie himself, it all starts to make sense.

The godless commies were apparently a bigger threat at the time than Bill Clinton's friends in the al-Quaeda were at the time ... as history has shown to be true. That's why that television tower was taken out in Belgrade.

Yep. Saddam was allowed back into power after he was driven out of Kuwait and signed a document agreeing to reveal to the blessed United Nations where he'd hidden his weapons of mass destruction.

By signing that document, Saddam told the world he had weapons of mass destruction.

A couple of months ago, a former Iraqi air force general appeared on the Jon Stewart show hyping his book.

He maintained the WMD's are all in Syria now.

“How do you know?'' asked Stewart.

“The pilots who flew the planes to Syria told me.'

As for Canadian involvement, you have to understand the special trading relationship between Jacques Chirac and Saddam.

The Butcher of Baghdad needed airlplanes to deliver poison gas for the Kurds who, strangely enough, disagreed with him.

France needed oil and had negotiated a deal for its company, Total Elf Fina, to begin development on a large undeveloped oil field within Iraq's borders.

One of the major shareholders of Total Elf Fina is Canada's own Power Corporation, run by Paul Desmarais, son-in-law of the aforementioned Jean Chretien.

Don't take my word for it. Do the reseach yourself, like I did.

It's an eye-opening experience. It's amazing how much a person can learn if he takes that responsibility onto himself, rather than listening to the blatherings of the Michael Moore crowd.

As for Warren Kinsella ... hey, anybody who used to play in a punk rock band can't be all that bad.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-12 1:03:09 PM

Those in the same 'the war in Iraq is illegal' club can continue screaming rubbish, but it does not change the fact that we are at war for our very survival. Should we (yes, Canada included) lose, the Islamists will not be receptive to arguments that their victory is 'illegal'. All these useful idiots need to get a life.

Posted by: Alain | 2006-05-12 1:09:19 PM

UNSC Resulution 1441:


Some of UNSC 1441:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).

Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to WMDs, but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.

2) That the ceasefire granted under Resolution 687 was binding only insofar as Iraq was willing to hew to the terms of that ceasefire.

3) That 1441, and its deadline, represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.

4) That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations".

Iraq agreed to the Resolution on November 13. Weapons inspectors, absent from Iraq since December 1998 when they were withdrawn immediately prior to Operation Desert Fox returned on November 27, led by Hans Blix of UNMOVIC and Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA.


On September 12, 2002, U.S. President Bush, speaking before the General Assembly of the United Nations outlined the complaints of the United States against the Iraqi government, detailing Iraq's noncompliance to the terms of 16 resolutions of the Security Council since the Gulf War in 1990. Specific areas of noncompliance stated in this speech include:

"In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."
U.N. Commission on Human Rights found "extremely grave" human rights violations in 2001.
Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.

On November 8, 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences". The resolution passed with a 15 to 0 vote, supported by Russia, China and France, and Arab countries like Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein agreed to honor it.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-05-12 1:11:46 PM


You ask - "If there really were any grounds whatsoever to believe that this war really was illegal, wouldn't there be at least one such judgement on record? And yet you can't point me at one, can you? "

The question is not whether the war is illegal under "DOMESTIC" U.S. law. Broad Congressional resolutions that have been passed appear to meet the test of legality under U.S. law.

The question is whether the U.S. acted illegally under "INTERNATIONAL" law.

So - two reasons there is no judgement on record:

1. A private citizen ( or a state ) can not ask a domestic court to settle questions of international law. Those questions are answered before an international court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction.

2. The Litigants that appear before international courts both have to consent to appear before it. To date the U.S. has withheld it's consent to have the matter litigated.

Posted by: Nbob | 2006-05-12 1:20:49 PM

I posted about this on my own blog.


Based on his email response to me, Mr. Kinsella's justification for calling the Iraq war illegal is very much based on the fact that it did not receive approval from the UN Security Council. I know this because -- incredibly -- he seems to believe the Kosovo war did receive approval from the UN Security council. I haven't heard back from him after I suggested Russia and China's stand against intervention in Kosovo meant NATO went in their "illegally", according to his own definition.

Frankly, I don't know what to make of Mr. Kinsella's apparent ignorance of the very history he was a part of. (at least I think he was working for the Chretien government at the time)

Posted by: The Cyber Menace | 2006-05-12 1:45:12 PM

"Forgive them for they know not what they do."

Apparently Duke thinks he's Jesus...isn't that a sin?


"I get the same thrill out of screaming "faggot" - ebt

Then you both share a cigarette, eh ebt?

Posted by: Justin... | 2006-05-12 2:15:47 PM


did you have something to say on the topic or are you just farting out of your mouth again?

Posted by: Duke McGoo | 2006-05-12 2:25:09 PM


Kyklpoes have no muster and no meeting,
no consultation or old tribal ways,
but each one dwells in his own mountain cave
dealing out rough justice to wife and child,
indifferent to what others do.

As an "educated person" I'm sure you know exactly how that bit 'o Homer appies to you.

btw: That 4 billion in softwood tariffs we just got back from the US ; was that becasue they were illegal under domestic law or did the congressional act that authorized them take care of that?
Or did we call them illegal becasue they were contrary to the norms of international law ( which, as any educated person can tell you, include bi-lateral and multi-lateral treaties ) ?

Posted by: Nbob | 2006-05-12 2:48:33 PM


Did Kinsella tell you that stuff?

And what did Homer know about Canada's softwood business?

He was making up his stories when the indians still knew how to live here on without government money.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-05-12 2:58:39 PM


Would you mind focusing on the issue at hand?

Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2006-05-12 2:59:55 PM

I meant to commend you for your attempt to explain the role of unwritten constitutional principles in a constitutional democracy. It was accurate and clearly explained and, most importantly, it was written in language any reasonably intelligent lay-person could understand.

That said, it was pearls before swine. As I'm sure is becoming clear to you with each successive reply from Cletus and Jethro.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-05-12 3:05:45 PM


As I indicated before, I am surprised that your post was designed to engage Kinsella in a real discussion, but I'll take you at your word on it. but the chances of him joining in here, even if he does read this site, are quite small, I'd guess. But you have mentioned a couple of interesting points, so allow me to comment.

You write: "I can't speak on Canada's Charter, but the U.S. Constitution makes clear that it, and it alone is 'the supreme law of the land,' and that no treaty or international compact can overrule it."

There are three problems with this line of reasoning. (1) If this is enough to make it the case that nothing any other nation or international body (even one to which the US belongs) says can ever be binding on the US, then that effectively means that the US is exempting itself from ever truly being bound by *any* international agreements. They would always have the out that the constitution says they can break any international rules that they agreed to. But that can't be right.

(2) The idea that the US Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" that cannot be overruled by an international agreement strikes me as something that is designed to protect citizens from international deals, but only when they directly conflict with the Constitution. If, for example, the US agreed to an international treaty that infringed on the rights (as defined in the Constitution) of a citizen, that person could petition the Supreme Court and their Constitutional rights should be upheld.

(3) Even accepting that the US Constitution is the "supreme law of the land", it does not mean that any international agreements must be subordinate to every act of congress. So if starting the war with Iraq *did* violate the UN Charter, it would only be that case that this is irrelevant if it were a situation where following the UN Charter would require that the US Government violate the US Constitution. In other words, so long as international agreements are not themselves in conflict with the Constitution, the issue of what the "supreme law of the land" is is not at issue.

Next you write: "Additionally, as I read the UN Charter, nations have a right to self-defense, and I would submit that would include military action against any regime found to be in cooperation with al Qaeda, irrespective of whether or not said regime had foreknowledge of the 9/11/01 attack."

This, I think, is the crux of the "was it or was it not illegal?" debate. On the one hand, it is a well established fact that self-defence is a justification for aggression against another nation. The only problem is how broad the definition of "self-defence" is. When the tanks rolled across the border from Germany to Poland, there was no doubt that the Poles (and anyone willing to help them) had the right to wage war. But modern war is a far different thing. Few can seriously doubt that a military response to the Taliban in Afghanistan was anything other than a response to aggression. The case of Iraq is enough less clear-cut to require more consideration. Personally, I don't buy a self-defence or justified retaliation argument here. The argument that action was justified by Iraq's many violations of UN resolutions and commitments it made to the UN seems the far stronger claim.

So I still don't know whether or not the invasion was technically "illegal" by international law. But if it was, the following seems a good analogy for what happened: Imagine that a guy in your neighbourhood has killed several people and threatened to kill more. Despite a court order that he not own guns, he has several. The police ask him nicely to give them the weapons and not to hurt anyone, but refuse to do any more than that to enforce the law. The guy has directly and repeatedly made credible threats against good friends of yours. You urge the police to do their job and arrest the guy, but they refuse to act. So, knowing that the law supports some action be taken and in the absence of anyone else's willingness to do anything, you shoot and kill the guy.

Illegal? Yes. Unjustified? Given the unwillingness of the proper authorities to do what they should have done and given the threat that he continued to pose, no.

But, as I said before, I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to understand international law, so I really don't have good reason to believe that the invasion was illegal.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-05-12 3:32:08 PM

D.J. McGuire-

I am focusing on the issue at hand! As far as international law and just wars go - The Iliad / Odyssey is the "ur text" for western thinking on the topic. As any educated person would know.


Aww shucks - thanks

I think you and I are buzz kill around here -what with our insistence on facts and reason and all. But just as "the law is as law does" we do what we have to do

Posted by: Nbob | 2006-05-12 3:33:25 PM


Canada got 4 billion back because Harper and W get along.

Despite what the Liberals would like you to believe, softwood was not covered by the Free Trade Agreement ... that's why the Libs spent so much of your money taking it to the WTO.

But instead of trying to get along with our neighbour, the LIbs kicked 'em in the shins. When W ignored them, they started crying ‘I'm the real victim here.'

Typical juvenile tactics from those who do not compehend there was a proud Canadian history before Pierre Trudeau.

Isn't it about time to discover independent thinking?

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-12 3:36:49 PM

Kinsella has already indicated to me what he thinks the definition of a "legal" war is: UN Security Council approval. In fact, it's the definition most people use.

As far as I know, since the States signed on to the UN Charter, it is bound by its rules. Therefore, any foreign military intervention without UN approval is, technically, against "international law".

That so few actually abide by the UN Charter, including Canada, might shed some light on how bound to it member states believe thay are -- which might have an impact on the status of the Charter as "international law". If no one follows it, is it really law?

But that's not what Kinsella has in mind anyway, from what I can gather. So it might not be an important point of focus presently.

Posted by: The Cyber Menace | 2006-05-12 3:56:43 PM


Does it follow, then, that all jihadists actions in the world are illegal, since none of them were approved by the UN Security Council?

I would think the UN would outlaw anger if it could pass a law to do so. How about even thinking about being a victim? That leads to frustration and anger, I guess.

I could enumerate all the conflicts in the world today if I knew what they were.

Even though I am neither Jewish or jihadist, I know one fact. Only one of the world's conflicts involved Jews.

I'm guessing most of the rest involves jihadist action or threats of action through either guerilla action or state policy.

I'll even bet my first-born (of three) the United Nations will never acknowledge that fact. OK, maybe my aging dog.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-12 4:03:16 PM

Kinsella isn't going to bother to talk to the proletariat who comment here. He is busy trying to perfect his punk rock guitar licks.

Punk rock to music is what crazy eights is to cards. Non music!

That man has had his time and it's over now. He has nothing more to contribute to Canada's well being just like the Liberal sector in general.

The USA has had long standing enemies in the Middle East and the Middle East has managed to find long standing friends in the West. Liberals and NDPers are the front runners. These people share the same disgusting trait .... ENVY of anyone who has creatively earned more and better than their dumb lazy asses are capable of.

If the Left is unable to acheive anything beyond socialist dreams of stealing capitalist wealth, they they should simply take their place by the side of the road and salute their betters as they burn their way down the road.

I ahve noted that there is a dramatic shift in the sensibilities of Western society. It is starting to realize that tolerating the intolerable is becoming wearing some. The backlash is on and it's not stoppable. Simply put ... when push comes to shove, thinking people want to survive and live their lives as they want to. FREELY and FEARLESSLY. Sucking up to bullies and fanatics is not the route to having a great culture. It's a cowardly way of hoping to be left alone. It can't work.

The Left in Canada and the USA have had a fabulous free ride by appealing to the seedy side of humaity where spoiled brats can rule and indulge in what 'feels good' rather than what is good.

In case you aren't sure, what is good is freedom and prosperity. The opposite is slavery and poverty. The Left seems to unwittingly prefer the later. I suppose it's because most of them feel the false sense of security that thirty-five years of nanny state (Trudeaupia) has pretended to them.

I have observed many years of restraint on the right as the Left has trashed all the proud and commendable acheivements of our forefathers. Much like adults letting children make their mistakes in the hopes that as they grow up they will learn from those silly mistakes.

That is where the Right made their silly mistake. Children need guidance and sometimes the rod.

A spoiled child grows up to be a spoiled adult and that is why the medicine is so bitter for those who thought they might never have to grow up and be responsible. Thank God there are still enough right-thinking people to take control and do something about this state of decline we find ourselves in.

The USA has a right to attack enemies who threaten them and we have duty to help. They are us and we are them. We are all in this together. If I was forty years younger, I would be a US Marine

Sorry to bloviate, but it's Friday and I am a bit bored.

Posted by: Duke McGoo | 2006-05-12 4:06:48 PM


What's wrong with punk rock?

In the past two months, I've bought the London Calling CD by the Clash and a best of Ramones.

I like the lyrics on Song 2 of the Ramones as it pertains to the ignoramuses out there.

Beat up the brat
Beat up the brat
Beat up the brat with a baseball bat

Oh, yeah
Oh, yeah
Oh, oh.

Simple, yet effective and a good response to its times ... even though I love Led Zeppelin, Alice Cooper, the Beatles and bands of that ilk.

Listen to everybody, even the ignorant. They may have something to teach you. Not oftern, but sometimes they have just a wee bit different skew on how to look at things.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-12 4:21:27 PM

Sorry, I am hooked on MUSIC

You can hit brats with bats if you want to. I am sure there is much to be learned there.

Posted by: Duke McGoo | 2006-05-12 4:30:31 PM

Set You Free,
I'll forgive you your perverse politics, but dammit man, don't mess with Ramones lyrics. It's "beat ON the brat."

Incidentally, as you may know, the Ramones were torn apart by both ideology and romantic betrayal; Johnny, an avid Reaganite, stole Joey's girlfriend, which inspired the hit The KKK Took My Baby Away.

As for Duke, can't tell whether he's more unbearable when he's engaged in random abuse or when he engages in Deep Thought. Let's call it a tie.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-05-12 4:30:55 PM

Kinsella has commented on the Shotgun before. I would also think he tracks links to his blog as well.

So, if he doesn't respond, I would imagine it's because, on this point, he's pretty much out to lunch.

Ironic for someone who scolded Bob Rae for being out to lunch for comparing Bush to Hitler, isn't it?

Posted by: The Cyber Menace | 2006-05-12 4:53:14 PM

"That so few actually abide by the UN Charter, including Canada, might shed some light on how bound to it member states believe thay are -- which might have an impact on the status of the Charter as "international law". If no one follows it, is it really law?"

The Security Council dictates and the dicates of the UN Charter are two entirely different things Cyber. You'd know that with even a grade 4 education.

You people are like a retarded, right-wing version of Wikipedia - facts are 'reality-based' and therefore a liberal conspiracy.

Stephen Colbert so owns you all every night of his show.

Posted by: Justin | 2006-05-12 5:46:25 PM

"That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687."

How did Iraq materially breach the ceasefire terms? UNSCR 686 outline the terms of the Safwan ceasefire.


UNSCR 678 authorizes member states to use:

"...all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"


'All necessary means' is materially different from "serious consequences". And that is why the urging by Blair et al, at the time, for another resolution.

Posted by: DJ | 2006-05-12 6:53:06 PM

The armistice of the Gulf War bears similarities to The Treaty of Versailles (1919):


Both were ceasefires in which the aggressors, Germany and Iraq, signed instruments of peace which required them to pay reparations, recognize other countries possession of territory, and limited their military capabilities to certain restrictions.

They both cheated these treaties and received war and invasion in return.

The term 'Serious Consequences' in UNSC Resolution 1441 is supposed to mean what?

Saddam had cheated every clause of the ceasefire agreement, with the coniving of France, Germany, and Russia. The Oil for Food fraud was known before the invasion. Total Fina Elf, a PowerCorp company, had a sweetheart deal to cheat the Oil for Food program with France. Jean Chretien's daughter, France, is married to the son of the cheif shareholder of Total Fina Elf. This was and is known.


'Serious Consequences' cannot mean sanctions. Sanctions were a failure and were known to be a failure BEFORE the invasion.

'Serious Consequences' had to mean war.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-05-12 7:30:52 PM

The Oilers just tied the Sharks--sweet! Was the Iraq war illegal? That MUST be a rhetorical question, of course it was and it seems that even are not so bright brothers and sisters to the south are finally realizing what most of us up north stated three freaking years ago! The truth will always get out eventually--even Francis Fukiyama the father of the Neo Conservative brotherhood is now discussing the stark deceptions and false tactics used by the Bush Admin to justify this illegal oil grabbing war (WMD's, ties to Osama?) all lies that the not so perceptive segments of the public were force fed. Lies about the democratization of the middle east and national security. Anyone that believed these fox news lies needs a slap in the face and a wake up call. The Iraq war was illegal and immoral, any fool would realize that--and thats what makes this blog so freakin funny.

Posted by: Bob | 2006-05-12 7:45:53 PM

17 Resolutions was not enough! Bush should have waited for a nice even number of UN resolutions against Iraq before toppling his regime, let's say 20 or 25, written in a real nice font of course, then the Left would have condemned Saddam too and would have agreed to topple him.

Lefties need our pity, in Iraq there are now millions more people who will get to decide for themselves how they want to live - the antithesis of leftist ideology. And this happened so soon after the Left lost their allies in Afghanistan - the Taliban strictly controlled social and political policy with liberal use of violence, the epitome of leftist ideals.

Posted by: infidel | 2006-05-12 8:41:30 PM

For those interested-
Catechism #2243 (Catholic Church)

Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.
(lifted off mycatholic.com)

Draw your own conclusion. Personally, I believe the war in Iraq passes the 'legitimate' test. Many Dem/Lib. Catholics disagree.

Posted by: lwestin | 2006-05-12 8:47:26 PM

" 2. Demands that Iraq implement its acceptance of all twelve resolutions noted above and in particular that Iraq:

(a) Rescind immediately its actions purporting to annex Kuwait;

(b) Accept in principle its liability for any loss, damage, or injury arising in regard to Kuwait and third States, and their nationals and corporations, as a result of the invasion and illegal occupation of Kuwait by Iraq;

(c) Under international law immediately release under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Red Cross Societies, or Red Crescent Societies, all Kuwaiti and third country nationals detained by Iraq and return the remains of any deceased Kuwaiti and third country nationals so detained; and

(d) Immediately begin to return all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, to be completed in the shortest possible period;

3. Further demands that Iraq:

(a) Cease hostile or provocative actions by its forces against all Member States including missile attacks and flights of combat aircraft;

(b) Designate military commanders to meet with counterparts from the forces of Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait pursuant to resolution 678 (1990) to arrange for the military aspects of a cessation of hostilities at the earliest possible time;

(c) Arrange for immediate access to and release of all prisoners of war under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross and return the remains of any deceased personnel of the forces of Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait pursuant to resolution 678 (1990); and

(d) Provide all information and assistance in identifying Iraqi mines, booby traps and other explosives as well as any chemical and biological weapons and material in Kuwait, in areas of Iraq where forces of Member States cooperating with Kuwait pursuant to resolution 678 (1990) are present temporarily, and in adjacent waters;"

There's the term of Safwan. Where's the breach?

Who knows what 'serious consequences' meant? However, it is materially different than 'all necessary means'.

Personally, the Eisenhower Doctrine is preferrable as a US foreign policy.

" This region has always been the crossroads of the continents of the Eastern Hemisphere. The Suez Canal enables the nations of Asia and Europe to carry on the commerce that is essential if these countries are to maintain well-rounded and prosperous economies. The Middle East provides a gateway between Eurasia and Africa.

It contains about two thirds of the presently known oil deposits of the world and it normally supplies the petroleum needs of many nations of Europe, Asia and Africa. The nations of Europe are peculiarly dependent upon this supply, and this dependency relates to transportation as well as to production! This has been vividly demonstrated since the closing of the Suez Canal and some of the pipelines. Alternate ways of transportation and, indeed, alternate sources of power can, if necessary, be developed. But these cannot be considered as early prospects.

These things stress the immense importance of the Middle East. If the nations of that area should lose their independence, if they were dominated by alien forces hostile to freedom, that would be both a tragedy for the area and for many other free nations whose economic life would be subject to near strangulation. Western Europe would be endangered just as though there had been no Marshall Plan, no North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The free nations of Asia and Africa, too, would be placed in serious jeopardy. And the countries of the Middle East would lose the markets upon which their economies depend. All this would have the most adverse, if not disastrous, effect upon our own nation’s economic life and political prospects."

It avoids all the lies and deceit. In 1957, Ike intervened in Lebanon. It was in America’s interest. Ditto 1973,(Nixon considered intervention because of the oil embargo) 1991 and 2001. Ike made it clear almost 50 years ago that the US would not abide a threat to the region.

Democracy will not take hold in Iraq, because democracy grew from the evolution of a genetically unique northern European people. It's not transferrable. ME people evolved a more particularist society, unsuitable for the democratic model. Regardless of how altruistic you feel the Bush policy is, it is wasted on a people genetically and culturally incapable of embracing it.

Posted by: DJ | 2006-05-12 11:48:34 PM


Posted by: lwestin | 2006-05-13 12:29:32 AM

shhhh lwestin, don't provoke the neo-Nazi. He's funnier if you just let him rant away without interference.

Posted by: Jim in Toronto | 2006-05-13 12:40:16 AM


Ve haff vays ov maykin' you takkk.



Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-13 2:28:51 AM

The level of the discussion here is pathetically low.

I happen to think the invasion/liberation of Iraq was a good thing, although the post-war planning wasn't excactly stellar.

But of course there are reasonable arguments for calling the Iraq war illegal (see e.g. some of the links above). It's simply a matter of opinion.

Btw, what is a legal war?

(And now back to listening to "Staten och Kapitalet" with Ebba Grön.)

Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2006-05-13 2:50:44 AM

So what if the US-led invasion of Iraq was "illegal"--have the UN police force arrest them. Ha ha, just after the UN finishes up its stellar work in Sudan and Congo and wraps ups its child prostitution rings elsewhere in Africa. Sorry, but the UN lacks moral or political legitimacy to constitute "law" in any philosophically coherent sense.

I find myself in the minority in that I opposed invasion of Iraq initially but have come to support it more strongly as having been the right thing to do as time passes. The latest report from the Brookings Institute as to economic and other indicators in Iraq is very encouraging. Further, the exercise has had a (good) destabilzing effect in the region, with the effect of marginalizing Iran-Syria. With Iran calling for the end of liberal democracy worldwide, I think even the Eurocrats are beginnning to see the light.

Posted by: murray | 2006-05-13 5:26:30 AM

The level of discussion here IS pathetic - witness Iraq war supporters taunting and belittling Mark, who SUPPORTED THE INVASION. Discussion these days has been nearly destroyed - most people turn into 3 year olds.

Why is so hard for people to see that Mark AGREED with invading Iraq? Perhaps they can't read?


Posted by: Jason | 2006-05-13 5:54:36 AM

Murray, interesting switch in Iraq - you're the only person I've heard of to go from 'against' to 'for'.

I was against the Iraq war the whole time, but not because it was 'bad', rather because I felt we should be more focused on Iran or North Korea.

Posted by: Jason | 2006-05-13 5:57:01 AM

Why does anyone anywhere give a rat's ass about what a Liberal hack like Kinsella thinks???

Posted by: Proud K-W Conservative | 2006-05-13 6:35:34 AM

1 2 3 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.