AndrewL

True enough Andrew. The goal of the ad is to garner interest in joining the forces. The ad does that. We are discussing it now which means it is a successful ad. Very true. I am disgusted and depressed by the notion of children being manipulated by advertisers to join an army. Canada should have a disaster relief force, for both domestic and international use. I don't support a standing army whose main purpose is nation building and fulfilling NATO obligations. (i ma not a pacifist BTW, in fact i think Ghandi was an idiot of immense proportions.) Andrew

No, the ads don't mention that. Neither do hockey night in Canada ads mention Todd Bertuzzi's sucker punch, nor do Microsoft ads mention system crashes, nor do Toyota Prius ads mention the 6 month wait, nor do NDP ads mention the absolute vaccuum of practicality in the party, nor do KFC ads mention transfats. They are ads. Maybe approaching them from that understanding would keep this discussion on a useful plane. Asking an adult to understand the context of advertising is valid. My major concern is children, specifically my own. Children are very influenced by advertising at a very young age, and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to shelter them from ads. Children cannot approach ads from a more mature context, as you and i can. Andrew

There is no shame in discussing the army, both good and bad. They are a public institution as open to real criticism as any other public institution. It is absolutely necessay for the public to always scrutinize the army, especially in (but not limited to) situations where the army is involved in colonialism and occupation. Andrew

No personal offense intended. But i think the better the ad, the worse it is. If an ad is judged by how effective it is at altering and shaping a person, the more i am reminded how easy it is for a small group of people to influence the behavior of many. I resent that on a very critical level. Andrew

That is patently false. Look up definition of terrorist. The best definition of terrorism is as follow: The use or threat of violence against civilians for political, ideological, or economic purposes. Terrorists targets civilians directly, almost exclusively. Some actions by states and some actions by insurgents can be considered terrorist. But far and away, insurgents and state armies attack soldiers and infrastructure. But with the modern machines of war, and the general cowardice of modern warfare, more civilians get killed in the crossfire (over the last century and into this one) than at any other time in history. What exactly do you disagree with? Andrew

In modern warfare it is civilians who bear the highest casualty rate. Perhaps that ad should make a point of that. Andrew Good point. Canadians are naturally sympathetic to the plight of civilians. The ads should somehow reflect that it is the insurgents who are targetting civilians and are inflicting the highest casualty rates on civilians. There are very good reasons to fight, protecting the lives of civilians is high amongst them. All sides of war inflict higher rates of damage on civilians. Be it air strikes, scared soldiers firing into crowds, plain old murder, cluster bombs, etc.... Neither insurgents nor state armies aim at civilians (with some exceptions), but civilians are always killed at a higher ratio. Terrorists are the ones who taget civilians directly. Look @ the israeli/hezbolah war. Israel killed more civilians than combatants, whereas Hezbollah (not for lack of trying) killed more IDF soldiers than israeli civilians. Israel is still killing innocent children in this war because they dropped millions of cluster bombs in civilian areas after the cease fire. Look at the history of war in the 20th century. Far more civilians died at the hands of all sides than in any century past. All modern war is the same. Andrew

Nor did i say you did, My piont was it did not misrepresent anything it did not sugar coat it, it presented it as dirty,flat, and greasy, the way it should, keep in mind it is looking for indiv's that are up to the challange, not those looking for glory or the beaches, but those that don't mind hard dirty, greasy work. What part of the ad did you find misrepresented. I did not interpret it that way. To me it certainly made an attempt not to glorify, but it still did not show the reality of war or of military life. It can't. Just like MacDs cant show the reality behind fast food, and just like a car ad does nto show the reality of me spending most of the time in my car inching forward in a maddening and pathetic commute to and from work. Ads are no reality, they are a fantasy of what we all wish reality was. The Armed Forces are no exception to this. Andrew

You suck and you will never amount to anything. How's that? Andrew

It does'nt get any flatter, or greasier than that, no where did they promise a vaction spot on some beach gocking at all the babes, instead they promised you a hard life, doing one of the worlds most dangrous jobs, serving our great nation in it's armed forces. And if you did'nt see that watch it again. i never claimed they did offer glory. My point was that an ad is always a misrepresentation of reality. No matter what. It has to be. Reality is dirty, flat , and greasy, and thats no way to attract recruits. Andrew

In modern warfare it is civilians who bear the highest casualty rate. Perhaps that ad should make a point of that. Andrew

I think an ad to join the forces is destined to the same misleading garbage that befalls any other ad. Notice how the big mac is so big and juicy, but when you actually get it its flat and greasy and quite disgusting. Andrew

The notion that global warming or kyoto is just some super leftist conspiracy makes no sense at all. You compare it to George Bush hoodwinking the american public, but i would argue that even Bush believes sincerely that he is doing the right and truthful thing. (the fact that he is an idiot aside). Andrew Well gee only lefists such as Gore,Suzuki,Blair,Hansen, and other well known lefists are the ONLY ones peddling the Kyoto B.S. The president is hoodwinking the public you say and yet he is also an idiot you say. LOL. Im sorry, did you actually say anything worth responding to there? Andrew

What Islamic, anti-American country, are you operating out of or is it Iran itself? You disagree with the content of my post? Than offer an alternative view if you can. How do you explain the fact that the vast majority of Americans thought Saddam had a connection to 9/11, if not for their susceptibility to war propaganda and their somewhat insular nature? Do you have another theory that would explain this? Andrew

No, you are over estimating it. What makes you believe that they are so different from you other than your own prejudices? The fact that close to 90% of americans believed that there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam in the run up to war. While the rest of the world was under no such impression at all. How do you explain that? The fact is the US is a fairly insular country that pays little attention to what goes on outside their own bubble, and if you combine this with their historical militancy and glorification of all things war, than yes, i think it is likely that given the right sort of propaganda the US populace could conceivably support the use of a nuclear first strike against a non-nuclear nation, and they would get away with it. No other nation on the planet could. Andrew

Greetings Andrew! Perhaps I might lend a hand. * * * When it comes to the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons, I respectfully submit that there is no substantial increase in danger to world peace here. Indeed, if it is our general goal to maintain a relatively peaceful planet, then the development of nuclear weapons capability by Iran is not something that ought to be rationally feared. 1. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) has proven to be extremely effective in maintaining 'nuclear' peace amongst nuclear powered nations - as long as a relative balance is maintained. It is important to keep in mind the converse of this - that an imbalance of nuclear weapons capability is inherently a dangerous or unstable condition. 2. The long standing (and bloody) conflict between Pakistan and India has actually reduced and improved - only once nuclear weapons were balanced on both sides. 3. The NPT is actually a closed club of elite powers that is in itself, nothing more than a political monopoly, which is ultimately, destabilising. Given the subject of nuke weapons, instability is the absolute worst negative. 4. At present, there is a nuclear imbalance in the Middle East region caused by Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons. This is a major contributing factor to Middle East regional instability. 5. Ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian State has acted in every way as a rational state actor. On this basis, I do not see the acquisition of nuclear weapons technology by Iran to pose a significant danger to world peace. Indeed, post-WW2 history suggests that Iran's eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons capability will, in all reasonable probability, act as a stabilising measure in the region. The Middle East is desperately in need of some major elements of stablity. Nuclear weapons parity in the Middle East is the most likely way to achieve some stability in this tormented region. As usual, MM, i agree fully. Andrew

They've had nukes for over sixty years, the Soviet Union has been gone for seventeen, so why haven't they? You forget that the US is a democracy who's government is accountable to the people. Most of these other places are not. The government you love to hate will be history in a year and a half by peacefull democratic means. These other guy's? You and MM seem to work on the philosophy that if the cops have guns, the town will be a safer place if the crooks have them to. And they are also the only nation to ever use them when they a had a monopoly on their use. I have not forgotten that the US is a democracy. And they certainly do have some level of accountability. But i am not underestimating the will of the poeple in the US to go along with such an act. Andrew

Nope.....France has recently made the exact same nuclear threat for mind games with Iran: http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/...rrent%20Affairs The USA and FSU/Russia have always maintained a first strike nuclear option. It is neither new or remarkable. Is this official french policy, as it is in the american nuclear posture review, or was it just Chirac making noise for the microphones? The threat of a nuclear fisrt strike against a non nuclear nation is new, and it is remarkable. Andrew

Exactly. That is what many who question the evangelical zeal of so many global warming/climate change advocates are trying to point out. Many were pointing the finger at global warming due to human CO2 production when we were having those storms. Turns out that probably wasn't the cause. As often as not, when you jump to conclusions you end up waisting time and resources on the wrong thing, while doing nothing to solve a problem which might not even be solvable or even a problem. But if the actual cause from China is true its a good example of how far removed weather events can have far reaching effects. Andrew

Of course it is. What weather/climatic occurences are NOT covered by it?see? Well weather and climate are two different things. Weather is localized and can have any number of causes, the climate system obviously only governing this at top of the hierarchy. The climate system itself is concerned with larger patterns, i.e., jet streams. ocean currents, seasons, long term cycles, ecosystems, etc.... One should not confuse a local weather event for being directly caused by the larger system. (at some point we may be able to pinpoint these connections, but not yet). Excuse me, apparently you did not read the original article posted, about the sulfur content of clouds developing over China, that entered the climate and moved into the hawaiian express it being the factor that caused the horrendous weather that destroyed Stanley Park. That is fascinating.... thanks for pointing that out. My argument is still valid for the most part though, it is in practice very hard to pinpoint the vast majority of weather events to happenings in the entire climate system. People have theories and models but on a very basic level it is chaotic to our senses. Andrew

Any evidence of that? Bin Laden and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) The role of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) as a terrorist organization is amply documented by Congressional transcripts. According to Frank Ciluffo of the Globalized Organized Crime Program, in a testimony presented to the House of Representatives Judicial Committee: "What was largely hidden from public view was the fact that the KLA raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and Kosovo lie at the heart of the "Balkan Route" that links the "Golden Crescent" of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe. This route is worth an estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80 percent of heroin destined for Europe." (House Judiciary Committee, 13 December 2000) The relationship between the KLA and Osama bin Laden is confirmed by Interpol's Criminal Intelligence division: "The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden . Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict." (US Congress, Testimony of Ralf Mutschke of Interpol's Criminal Intelligence Division, to the House Judicial Committee, 13 December 2000). The evidence regarding the KLA contained in Congressional transcripts, news reports and intelligence documents directly implicates General Wesley Clark. During his stint as NATO Supreme commander (1997-2000). Clark had close personal ties with KLA Chief of Staff Commander Brigadier Agim Ceku and KLA Leader Hashim Thaci (see photo below ). and from the same source: The development and training of KLA forces was part of NATO planning, directly led by General Wesley Clark. In the words of former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) secret agent Michael Levine, writing at the height of the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia: "Ten years ago we were arming and equipping the worst elements of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan - drug traffickers, arms smugglers, anti-American terrorists…Now we're doing the same thing with the KLA, which is tied in with every known middle and far eastern drug cartel. Interpol, Europol, and nearly every European intelligence and counter-narcotics agency has files open on drug syndicates that lead right to the KLA, and right to Albanian gangs in this country." (New American Magazine, May 24, 1999) http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO310B.html I would also suggest reading Inat: Images of Serbia, by Scott Taylor. He is former Canadian intelligence and spent time behind 'enemy' lines in the kosovo conflict for more personal and detailed information about NATOs campaign, the KLA, and the failure (repeated in Iraq) of journalists to report the real story. http://www.espritdecorps.ca/ Andrew

And of course there is much less lunacy in Iranian politics. its a different kind of lunacy, but of course they are bunch of morons as well. Thing is, Iran could not get away with a nuclear first strike, but the US could. Andrew

Sure thing. Andrew

As long as downloading music and movies undermines the economy, even if only slightly, i support it fully. If only we could figure out even more effective ways of stickin' it to the man, that would be great. If i woke up tomorrow and the entire global economy collapsed i would be satisfied.... Andrew

Disagree again. Any nation that has nuclear weapons will continually review it's options, including a first strike. Making that public is not a threat but a warning of what is possible when dealing with any country that possesses nuclear weapons and has the ability to deliver them. It is big stick diplomacy. The US is no more likely to use nuclear weapons than any other country and I still maintain that the first time one is used it will not involve the US unless they are the first victim. So what are you disagreeing with? The US is still the only nation to make the threat public..... and given the lunacy that dominates american politics they are by far the most likely to carry through with it... Andrew

The notion that global warming or kyoto is just some super leftist conspiracy makes no sense at all. You compare it to George Bush hoodwinking the american public, but i would argue that even Bush believes sincerely that he is doing the right and truthful thing. (the fact that he is an idiot aside). Andrew