luohan

What are you talking about? Do you know what a trade deficit is? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes I do, and I'm sorry. I meant to say that America still owes China for unpayed goods and services (and they will continue to do so as long as the children of the U.S. plays w/ teddy bears etc.)

Whatever your arguments may be the facts are simple: 1. China is a sovereign nation. 2. The U.S.A owes China billions of dollars in trade deficits. 3. The U.S.A is once again projecting their influence where it's not welcome. These are the facts and they are undisputed. 1989 is irrelavent, for it has absolutely nothing to do with China's current defense budget. If you want to ask me what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989, then I could ask you: What happened in Iraq in 2003? Who tried to assassinate Fidel Castro during the cold war? Which country sponsored the Latin-American nations with their puppet democracy while pushing their genocidal concensus on the Latino people? Which country drops cluster bombs that looks like food packets? If dictatorships are dangerous to world peace, then why is the "most democratic country" making the most war? No, the U.S. is not acting "prudently, instead they are reacting with hypocrisy. Yes, there are 50 states with individual agenda's. However, all of them are under the influence of American companies who only have one agenda: to make more money. Finally I must ask, if America is the "beacon of freedom" and they defend everyone's rights, if they defend individual rights, then maybe (just a sugestion) they should at least repect sovereignty. The second amenment states "The right to bear and carry arms shall not be infringed upon", maybe they should leave China alone then.

She is being released today, any final thoughts?

Is the U.S. really a democracy, when conservative racists all all running things. Furthermore, who is in control of Afghanistan and Iraq? Can you honestly believe that those people are not political puppets of the United States. "We're going to invade your country to free you", thats what the United States is saying. Why are there insurgents? Maybe because the occupation is against their will. So what if China is a Socialist Nation? What does that have to do with them increasing their defense budget? What does 1989 have to do with anything? Why do you even think that it is relavent with China's defense budget? You think that China is increasing its budget so that it can oppress people? If so, what proof do you have of that? If China is really the "big bad wolf", then why is the U.S. asking them to control Korea? What kind of Hypocrisy is that? All this "political dictatorship" stuff is all the propaganda the Western nations have been buying into. The main communist threat is gone, so they have to have a new war to carry on. Rumsfled won't be happy unless his defense budget is world conquest proportions. You see, China has only increased their spending by 35 Billion dollars / year. Adding that to the previous amount, China has a defense budget a little bit more than a tenth of the U.S. budget. Whereas China has twice the amount of people in their military. The U.S. is infact afraid of a second cold war, can't you see that? They don't like competition, they like being at the top. But thats a different matter altogether.

You never know, it might have some substance.

Well, I must say that I'm Stumped.

Quite the contrary my friend! Yes, I agree that we are the products of our experiences (which we recolect through our memory), but who said that we can't alter someone's memory? This is a whole different ethics issue, but it can "brainwash" just about anyone. Deprive them of water and light for 50 hours, and the average human will accept any programming.

Another thing, you said that you have no forgiveness. I would guess that she didn't do anything that directly affects you or anyone close to you, so there would be nothing that you could forgive her for, wouldn't you agree? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Some of us have cares and concerns which go above and beyond our own personal lives and what affects us. Would you forgive Adolph Hitler? Pol Pot? Joseph Stalin? When people commit crimes so grossly offensive to the world and society at large there is nothing at all unusual about members of that society feeling anger towards them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can honestly say that I have nothing to forgive Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot for. Though they commited crimes on a uninmaginable scale, it did not affect me. I was not born at the time and I doubt any of you were. I can't forgive them for anything. Forgiveness is between them and god.

Actually, without the United States western Europe would be speaking Russian. The Soviet Union was doing an admirable job defeating the Nazi war machine long before D-Day. While the minor assistance they received from the west was helpful - it was not decisive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Amen! Western Europe would probably be Communist too. Without her European allies, there would be no way that the U.S. can supress Communism. The Soviets would capture the Middle East oil fields, and they would overpower the U.S. by a huge margin. Hurray for Communism!!!! .... *sigh* if only

That is true. But just like Pearl Harbour, the ships in the Persian Gulf could easily get hit. Here are my theories on Pearl Harbour: 1. It was staged by the Americans in order to enter WW2 2. It was the Americans who forced the Japanese to lift the pressure on their oil supplies (what's better than hitting 7th fleet?) 3. The Americans forced the Japanese to do it (with the above method) so that they can enter the war. Why do I think this? The Americans had a great depression just like every other country (caused by the U.S. too), what's a better way to jump-start your economy than re-opening factories for operation and virtually ending unemployement? If the Administration wishes to sacrifice a few ships to further its agenda (and it knows that it can effectively cover it up or blame someone else for a few decades), then I don't think Bush will think twice about doing so. Roosevelt certainly never did.

It really doesn't matter in the end. We will run out of oil before the end of this century, so let the U.S. have all they want.

Fear is a useful tool in propaganda, it has to be accompanied by ignorance however. In the case of the U.S., Bush is exploiting the ignorant majority (those besides the rich people who voted for him) to further his agenda. Bush is a genious, his downfall is in thinking that nobody would notice.

I agree with you, I don't know him and therefore I cannot formulate an opinion as to whether he is guilty or not. I just think he is weird.

With the right treatment, and with some time, you can make someone believe that 2+2=5 (thats was from 1984 ). I guess I'm trying to say that anyone can be rehabilitated, you just need to "re-wire" his mind which is easy enough if you know how to. Feel free to tell me if I'm getting anoying.

As a Chinese-Canadian, I would like to bring this to our attention. This is what Rumsfeld said: "Since no nation threatens China, one wonders: why this growing investment?" -Here he talks about China expanding their military projects and increasing expenditures. He is saying this while he is pushing the Congress for funding for his "Star Wars" projects. "The world would welcome a China committed to peaceful solutions and whose industrious and well-educated people contribute to international peace and prosperity" -Rumsfeld promotes peaceful solutions? Both of those quotes tell me one thing. This guys is afraid another country will catch up to the U.S. in military strength. Either the U.S. enjoys being at the top where they are allowed to be imperialistic. Or he predicts that the rise of China will bring a new cold war. Rumsfeld also wants China to handle North Korea, I guess the U.S. is out of soldiers on standby and can't spare any more troops. Otherwise, such a request would probably not have been made. Summary: The U.S. wants China to cut down on its military spending in the name of world peace. At the same time, the U.S. wants China to "deal" with North Korea (which will most likely take military detterence if not force). So isn't that like saying: cut off your arms, then fetch me my slippers? What do you guys think?

Another thing, you said that you have no forgiveness. I would guess that she didn't do anything that directly affects you or anyone close to you, so there would be nothing that you could forgive her for, wouldn't you agree?

I understand this, however everyone needs to be equal under the law regardless of what they did. As long as she is a human being (some can argue that she isn't), then she should undergo the legal process with neither passion nor prejudice from the government, the same way that everyone is. Taking someone's rights away because they violated another person's rights is understandable. However, she has repaid society under the law and it should be left at that. I'm 16 years old and I seriously wouldn't care if she moved in next door to me. I amend what i said earlier, I am not defending her. I am being very impartial about this, I just don't want to see one person being despised so much regardless of what that person did.

She has been all over the news, and in addition to that, she has been the hot topic in many forums. Do you really think that we are an unsuspecting society?

I think I hit refresh or something, my bad.

To add more, the video tapes never showed the death of any of the people in question, on the rape. Therefore, the tapes only implicate her for rape and not for murder. Also, the prosecutors could have chosen to charge her with more crimes even after the sentence (an 8 month period). It was the prosecutors who chose not to persue this. I can now say for sure that she cannot for certain be branded a sociopath nor a psychopath. No psychologist has ever made a direct diagnosis (instead, everything was from documents and records rather than any direct contanct). Finally, I would advise everyone to just leave her alone (YES I'm defending her). This mob mentality needs to stop and we need to accept that she served the sentence that was given to her, and that ruling was final.

I registered just so that I post in this thread. I'm doing this topic for a debate at school and was assigned: [For] Homolka's release upon serving her sentence. As I was doing my research, I actually began to realise that this issue is way out of proportion. Here's what I think. This issue definitely comes down to fundamental human rights. A convict has rights as determined by the law, and as much as we fear that she will commit another crime, we cannot as a people decide her fate without changing our laws. The ruling of the court is final and as much as we would like to believe that she withheld evidence, it was her lawyer and not her who was found guilty of doing so. She isn't a psychopath, so she is less likely to repeat her offense. Whether she shows any remorse is subjective and should not be taken into account (considering that many juries have been swayed by tearful and emotional witness statements when they should have stayed objective and only looked at the facts). The true fact is that only Homolka truly knows if she is sorry for her crimes. The public should be notified of her release. However, people (mothers of teenagers to be precise) want to crucify her rights in order to satisfy their fears, paranoia, and hatred. There is a reason why Homolka fears that she will be lynched upon her release, thats because of all the antagonism surrounding her. I feel that there is no need for people to become proactive in this issue (which has been blown out of proportion). Face it, worse crimes are being commited legitimately, if you want to look at it moraly or ethically. If you don't want to look at it ethically, then you don't have much of an argument (if you believe that she should be charged for other crimes). She served her sentence and that should be that. To those who don't believe that the Canadian justice system is in fact "just". Then why don't you go and change the entire criminal code to be more strict (assuming thats what you want) rather than taking out your anger on one person who has taken advantage of our loose justice system? Everyone also deserves a second chance in my opinion. To summarise that, I guess that I'm not an "Eye for Eye" person. Instead, I look at one of my favourite acronyms, which is W.W.J.D. Peace!