crazymf

I would have to say no. Although some races tend to have higher rates of crime, just being a member of such a race is not a cause in and of itself. This reminds me of an incident several years back. I spent almost 20 years on the road as a touring musician. One week we were playing way up in Moosonee, on the James Bay coast. Had to load our equipment from our truck into a train, and then have it transported via a couple pickup trucks from the Moosonee train station to the arena there. At the gig, the population in the arena was about 95% Native. There were 3 trouble-makers in the crowd that night. All 3 were white guys. Maybe it's just being part of being a minority in any given area that causes people to act out-of-whack. Hard to say. I have done many gigs on reserves elsewhere over the years, and have noticed a similar trend. Natives, who are the majority, all well behaved, whites, the minority, acting up and stirring up shit. Strange. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Touche' brother. I too have spent many years out there road warrioring. Mostly country bands. Natives are hard on themselves generally, but don't stir the pot to the band much, if you have a fiddle. Don't go to an Indian bar without a fiddle. Don't do it. Doesn't work. Besides, one of them will bring one and you'll be stumbling along to him coming in one beat early all night. Makes for lots of work. If you drink a lot, it begins to make sense, but not before. Anyway, white young males usually are the ones causing violence in a mixed crowd. Indians love music and will give you their last dollar to hear 'Blue Eyes Crying in The Rain', just one more time, again and again.

The Liberals are obviously pro gay. Just look at their track record. Oh, and sex offenders? They're about to release one next door to you.

......and then add a cell phone to the fray and the problem gets a lot bigger.

Saskabush gangs!!! There has to be a punch line there somewhere. BTW, they are known as 'breeds' out there.

Yeah, the article is merely someones point of view, not fact. However, it leaves me with the ponderance of whether extreme muslims will forever be merely a gnat to be swatted every now and then, or turn into a genuine world struggle between ideologies.

However, it's interesting reading and makes sense if you aren't already dead set against Bush, the USA and their efforts. http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20051001/chong.shtml

He's a fed. We are 'clients' aka 'subjects'.

It's obvious why. And then Johnson bumped off Kennedy to become the president and Bobby got lonely and hired a killer to bump himself off so he could be with Bobby and start banging Marilyn too. It's easy. The facts are all there. Case solved.

Is this poll nation wide?

Fleabag, Yes, it was kind of Texassy of JB to do that, however, the American public wanted to know that every avenue had been taken to avoid this war. That's the purchase part of what the White House was selling. Really, of course the USA was telling Saddam to come out or we're coming in to get you. He was getting got no matter what. I believe JB also wanted the two other a**hole sons to come out too. Would it have stopped the invasion? It may have stalled it for a while during a civil war, power struggle, whatever may have happened after Saddam left, but there was really no way Saddam was leaving any more than him dancing on the roof of his castle in a pink tutu. The man did not communicate the way we do and lived in his own little world literally in his own empire. He got what was coming to him after 15 years of tyranny. I hope he gets the rest of it too. Maybe when he's executed the country will settle down.

*deleted*

For once I agree with you BD. The USA shouldn't say that. They should tell the truth, and the truth is that war is hell. Most of us that support the war effort will also understand the fact that people get killed in less than honorable ways and that a military operation is a blunt tool, not a sharp surgical instrument. Ultimately, a military is a killing organization and to get particular about how they do it is merely whining. What seems to be forgotten here is why aren't the same whiners holding the civilian population of Iraq accountable for their neighbors and brothers who are causing all the trouble in the first place?

Which times were those, and to whom? Surrender during the invasion you mean? He most likely would have been killed outright. If you mean before the invasion, I don't recall any offer to 'surrender' nor any refusal. George told Saddam publicly he had 24 or 48 hours to leave the country(can't remember which) which may have stalled the invasion or cancelled it. Saddam ignored the warning like all others.

It's a fricking war. Give it a rest and quit whining. If they killed more of those pricks maybe they'd get to come home sooner. To me they should have dropped a small nuke on the place and wiped it off the map. By all accounts most of the civilians were evacusted anyway.

Yeah, the Russians seem to f*ck everything up that they touch.

She was banging the president and he bumped her off. What's your problem??

I'm still trying to sort out in my head after my 45 years how a killer can be a hero in the name of his country or get the death penalty for doing the same deed in his own name.

20 000??? Try this. http://www.mystae.com/reflections/vietnam/canada.html 4000

So what you are saying is that the very people doing the fighting have no moral values and people like you should set policy from your armchair? Sounds an awful lot like the way the Vietnam war was conducted. By politicians who hogtied the generals and prevented them from doing their job. So while you accuse me of repeating barbaric practices of the past, you seem to be repeating useless political gestures of the past as well.

oyyyyy...........bd. The rubber has to meet the road. You remind me of that tv commercial where the guy chokes and all his friends can do is talk about saving him while he dies. You're probably going to run for PM someday right? You seem to have the nonproductive blathering down pat that seems to be needed in Ottawa. Even though you tend to piss me off with your wiggling and skirting the issues when confronted, I'm going to gracefully leave this topic to you and leave this thread, again.

And just how is it you would have them give you info that they don't want to give? 3 meals a day, cable tv and a warm kitchenette appartment to live in? Again, you seem to miss the point of the whole thing. These guys are 'enemies', a**holes. They want to kill you and rape your wife and sodomise your kids and then go downtown and blow up your office building. They wouldn't be there if they were at home on the farm in Iraq working like a decent human being. Again, what's your solution rather than just merely criticising everyone elses like usual?

I don't know what the CIA does during interrogations. Do you? That would be assuming a lot to think that they do torture people. I'm 'guessing' that they use techniques unknown to myself, but yet less than palatable to public view. I'm trying to agree with you BD. Torture is bad.

If you care to look back, all the reasons why invasion of Iraq was not 'internationally legal' are there too, or they would have rolled into Bagdhad when they had the world on their side. They knew it then, they just ignored it this time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Right, agreed. But all the pandering about WMD etc is moot. I feel the decision was made 12 years ago in some back room that they were going back there later. After 911, it was a good time to clean up the neighborhood seeing as how they were there anyway. Saddam was a pimple on the face of modern democracy and human rights and needed to be popped. I really don't care what the reason given was to go there. The end really does justify the means in this case....imo.

BLAH, ,,,,BLAH,,,,BLAH....... I still remember the Gulf war. When old Norman reined in his horse to appease the 'world community', when the mandated UN victory was complete. At that time I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall in the pentagon when then Sec of Def Dick Cheney proclaimed they'd be back in his best Arnie voice. I'd love to be a fly on a horsecrap when old George exclaimed to young George over a bottle of JD at the campfire how the good old USA has to go back for some 'unfinished business' at it's earliest convenience to Saddams house. All the reasons that America went back to Iraq are found in 1992, not 2002.

I'm a little twitchy on this one. The men did go there on behalf of the American government after all and to expect the Canadian government to officially recognise them is not really right. They were there as merc's after all, from our country and getting paid to shoot 3rd party gooks while getting paid by another government. The USA should have recognised all by granting automatic citizenship and affording them all the veterans benefits that the homeboys got, if any. Maybe they even did that, I don't know. I for one appreciate the support they gave our brothers down south, however, and would support any official recommendation of gratitude the government threw their way. Indirectly, any war the USA fights, we must as well to preserve our way of life, which is totally dependant on their survival.