User information for Chris Odgaard

Real Name
Chris Odgaard
Nickname
c r i s p y
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Signed On
January 31, 2000
Supporter
-
Total Posts
485 (Amateur)
User ID
2473
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
485 Comments. 25 pages. Viewing page 16.
Newer [  1    10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  ] Older
41.
 
Re: Canada's position, eh?
Mar 20, 2003, 15:46
41.
Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 15:46
Mar 20, 2003, 15:46
 
Bronco,

Thanks for taking time to address this rationally.

I also wish the US had found a way to make a UN resolution happen. I truly believe that part of the reasoning behind not waiting any longer is the weather. In a short time it will be just too hot to operate heavy equipment and or wear chemical suits in the desert.

This does sound like a reasonable explaination, though the fact that I hadn't heard it until now leads me to wonder why I hadn't heard it until right now, considering how closely I've been following things.

I have to say that 'acted more diplomatically' in your statement is vague. I believe that no matter what the US brought to the table, the French were prepared to veto.

For what it's worth, I beleive that the extremist attitude of the French government has been over the top. Anyone who knows a good number of french people knows that 'stubborn' doesn't really do them justice. However the same could be said of the US's position on this. The US was too quick to let out that they were going to go to war with Iraq with or without the backing of the US, leading some nations to cally take an adversarial stance. As evolved and enlightened that we all pretend to be, nobody likes to be bullied.

The current coalition is larger in number (over 40 nations) than the previous Iraq coalition (roughly 30 nations). Just different players this time.
If the French did not have veto power I think the resolution to the resolution would have passed.

You may be right, although I haven't seen the full list of countries that comprise this 40 nation coalition. Surely the lack of support from some of the worlds more (for lack of a better word) important countries counts for something.

Do the French and where they stand today in the political spectrum warrant veto power? What was the true reason for Frances decision to block this action? Politics, economics? Does it matter? At this point no.

I agree. Whether France deserves thier veto or not is a debate for another time. The fact of the matter is that at this time they currently have it. I for one am surprised at the anti-French sentiment that is being endorsed by the US administration, considering that there are other manny other countries who do not share the US's views on this war. Something doesn't stack up.

The US's military power seems to have blinded them to the fact that 250 (or so) million people still represents a rather small minority compared to the 6 (or so) billion people that represent the total population of this planet.

I agree in part with this. It would be great to have a truly equal society where people in countries in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and anywhere else where leaders are not elected by the people could do so. It would be great to have that 20-20 hindsight in the present to avoid future pitfalls. I'm beginning to feel, more and more, that the US needs to rethink it's involvement in the worlds problems. I know that isolationism isn't the answer but it is tempting.

Obviously, I think the answer lies in the US deferring to the judgement of the UN, EVEN when said judgement doesn't necessarily agree with the wishes of the US.

I mean, let's be realistic. More often than not the US's interests and the UN's interests are going be compatible. There just needs to be the perception internationally that the US obeys the UN, not the reverse.
---
Chris.
34.
 
Re: Canada's position, eh?
Mar 20, 2003, 15:01
34.
Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 15:01
Mar 20, 2003, 15:01
 
Iraq has NOT respected the international rules of law. They have NOT followed the UN's rulings.

Iraq, for the last 12 years, has basically told the UN to kiss their a s s.

That is why we are there. That is why we will finish the job.

We ARE following what was clearly laid out in the UN resolutions. There was never a treaty with Iraq - just a cease fire. This war is totally legal and just. To say otherwise shows a severe ignorance of the situation.

These are simple schoolyard justifications. Didn't your mother ever tell you that two wrongs do not make a right?

The ironic thing is that EVERYONE agrees that Saddam is a bad man and should be removed from power. The US and the UK are the ONLY countries that have the balls to do it.

It has been precisely this attitude that stalled progress in the US-UN impasse. People (and by extension, nations) prefer to be asked, rather than told, what to do. The US's military power seems to have blinded them to the fact that 250 (or so) million people still represents a rather small minority compared to the 6 (or so) billion people that represent the total population of this planet.

I am convinced that, had the US acted more diplomatically towards the UN, military action in Iraq would have proceeded with the full backing of a majority of the world's governments. This in turn would have greatly added to the legitamacy of any military action against Iraq, as well as providing an excellent example to other rogue nations of what can happen if they refuse to play nice with the rest of the world.
---
Chris.
25.
 
Re: Canada's position, eh?
Mar 20, 2003, 14:30
25.
Re: Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 14:30
Mar 20, 2003, 14:30
 
<sigh>

I shouldn't really have to explain this but the U.N. relies on access to the resources (including the military resources) of its member nations. So let's say that the U.N. backed a military action conducted by country W, X and Y against country Z, contrary the wishes of the U.S.

Does that help?
---
Chris.
18.
 
Canada's position, eh?
Mar 20, 2003, 13:40
18.
Canada's position, eh? Mar 20, 2003, 13:40
Mar 20, 2003, 13:40
 
First of all, let me state emphatically that I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and his government from power over Iraq, and I’m certain that the majority of Canadians feel the same way.

However, Canada (like many other U.N. nations) believes in respecting the international rule-of-law. What is the point of having a United Nations if the participating nations aren’t prepared to follow its rulings? Yes, diplomacy is a slow and frustrating process, and that at times it seems that all everyone ever does is talk. However, if the citizens of the world hope to ever live with each other peacefully, we are going to have to accept that participation in a world government forum is the only means to achieve this goal.

I realize that discussion of this subject evokes strong emotions, but I ask that you try to set your feelings aside for just a moment to consider this: if the situation was reversed, and the U.N. decided to embark on a military campaign without the support of the U.S., how do you think the U.S. would react?

All of this aside, once the war begins to wind down, you can bet that the U.N. will be called upon to assist in the process of rebuilding Iraq, and that Canada will be a willing participant.
---
Chris.
14.
 
Re: There....
Mar 20, 2003, 12:45
14.
Re: There.... Mar 20, 2003, 12:45
Mar 20, 2003, 12:45
 
I'm embarrassed to be Canadian

Er... Care to elaborate?
---
Chris.
7.
 
RE: Starlight Express
Mar 17, 2003, 11:58
7.
RE: Starlight Express Mar 17, 2003, 11:58
Mar 17, 2003, 11:58
 
Any credibility this guy might have had evaporated when I saw the creepy photoshop-ed image of him in the article. Brrr.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/images/sp_nanotech_1.jpg
---
Chris.
18.
 
Re: Hmmm....
Mar 16, 2003, 22:36
18.
Re: Hmmm.... Mar 16, 2003, 22:36
Mar 16, 2003, 22:36
 
See... Now if WE were ALL smart enough around here... WE would all be buying Windows XP Home Version OEM for a LOW, LOW price of $109.00.

Well, unless you purchased that copy bundled with a new computer system, you are in violation of your EULA and thus are no more legit than someone who downloaded thier version, Sparky.
---
Chris.
8.
 
It's the terrorists, stupid!
Mar 16, 2003, 13:13
8.
It's the terrorists, stupid! Mar 16, 2003, 13:13
Mar 16, 2003, 13:13
 
I'm pretty sure that people who don't use thier signals while driving have links to terrorism.
---
Chris.
90.
 
Re: Fuel for the fire. ;)
Mar 15, 2003, 12:38
90.
Re: Fuel for the fire. ;) Mar 15, 2003, 12:38
Mar 15, 2003, 12:38
 
2 words: plausible deniability.

Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.

Although in this case the plausibility is questionable... Should these same countries' intelligence services not have also been able to detect what the U.N. inspectors called 'obvious forgeries'?
---
Chris.
87.
 
Fuel for the fire. ;)
Mar 15, 2003, 11:54
87.
Fuel for the fire. ;) Mar 15, 2003, 11:54
Mar 15, 2003, 11:54
 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html
---
Chris.
10.
 
Re: Freedumb Fries
Mar 12, 2003, 12:03
10.
Re: Freedumb Fries Mar 12, 2003, 12:03
Mar 12, 2003, 12:03
 
I was going to let this go but...

I was also reading that congress was considering retaliatory legislation against France and other countries for not jumping on the war bandwagon... WTH? So much for the US's supposed belief in freedom. Yeah, right. Freedom to think exactly like us or ELSE!
---
Chris.
5.
 
Re: That's odd.......
Mar 11, 2003, 15:13
5.
Re: That's odd....... Mar 11, 2003, 15:13
Mar 11, 2003, 15:13
 
I'm donwloading it now, at a whopping 1.06KB/sec
---
Chris.
13.
 
Re: cheap pet food = bad
Mar 11, 2003, 13:01
13.
Re: cheap pet food = bad Mar 11, 2003, 13:01
Mar 11, 2003, 13:01
 
also, "meat meal" can contain carcasses from animal shelters, i.e. cats and dogs; and the chemical used to euthanize these animals is not affected by the rendering process that turns the carcasses into meal. this means that small amounts may be present in the final product, that is supposed to be fed to one's pets.

Ugh... Reading that actually made me nauseous.
---
Chris.
1.
 
VIA 4 in 1
Mar 11, 2003, 12:45
1.
VIA 4 in 1 Mar 11, 2003, 12:45
Mar 11, 2003, 12:45
 
Has anyone got a reliable mirror for the new 4 in 1's. I think the hamster in the wheel that runs VIA's website has died.
---
Chris.
17.
 
Re: Snow
Mar 9, 2003, 21:41
17.
Re: Snow Mar 9, 2003, 21:41
Mar 9, 2003, 21:41
 
Gotta know those people are Canucks when they're all smiling for pictures in a mess like that

That's funny, because it's exactly what I first thought.
---
Chris.
6.
 
Snow
Mar 9, 2003, 12:35
6.
Snow Mar 9, 2003, 12:35
Mar 9, 2003, 12:35
 
A day or two ago, snow was the topic-du-jour around these parts. Somebody forwarded me these pics of the calm after the storm in Newfoundland, Canada.

http://northernpen.hypermart.net/storm.htm
---
Chris.
4.
 
Re: Fun Time Story and LOSER judges
Mar 9, 2003, 12:18
4.
Re: Fun Time Story and LOSER judges Mar 9, 2003, 12:18
Mar 9, 2003, 12:18
 
When I first read your message, I was right there with you as I've seen cases thrown out (and serious offenders go free) on account of some minor procedural error on behalf of the police. However, once I read the article it was clear to me that the folks who deserve the blame in this case are the FBI.

Yet the evidence--that members of the group received many individual e-mail messages containing child pornography--hinged on the FBI's assertion that all members received the messages. However, the two judges found that FBI agents knew that most members didn't receive e-mail at all

Law enforcement officers MUST NOT LIE in order to gain convictions. This is fundamental to the successful operation of any legal justice system.

The Feds should damn-well have known better. I hope some bureau heads roll over this one.
---
Chris.
5.
 
Re: 'Crossgates Mall drops charges in T-shir
Mar 7, 2003, 11:43
5.
Re: 'Crossgates Mall drops charges in T-shir Mar 7, 2003, 11:43
Mar 7, 2003, 11:43
 
After reading that I'm still divided on the issue of if he should of been arrested or not.

According to statements given the police, a customer complained to Macy's security that Downs and his 31-year-old son, Roger, were arguing with a group of individuals, and "was afraid of what might happen."

It sounds to me like Downs (the T-shirt guy) wasn't following his own advice.
---
Chris.
18.
 
Re: Public accomodation
Mar 6, 2003, 15:20
18.
Re: Public accomodation Mar 6, 2003, 15:20
Mar 6, 2003, 15:20
 
Oh and I agree with Rigs. We need some pictures of all the snow

http://www.odgaard.ca/frontdoor.jpg
---
Chris.
14.
 
Re: Public accomodation
Mar 6, 2003, 12:51
14.
Re: Public accomodation Mar 6, 2003, 12:51
Mar 6, 2003, 12:51
 
That being said, I suspect there's more to this story than is being reported.

First thing I thought of. Something doesn't seem quite right.

Heh, I'm glad to see that there are a few fellow skeptics left out there that won't take everything they read at face value.

Personally, I'd like to see a picture of the shirt in question.
---
Chris.
485 Comments. 25 pages. Viewing page 16.
Newer [  1    10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  ] Older