blueblood

From my scant knowledge, how is he supposed to know that he has an IED in the first place? It's not like they are visible. I think that's a legitimate defence, no matter how weak it is. The soldier is entitled to think whatever he wants, if he thinks the insurgent is a credible threat, he can plug him, but he has to justify it. Judging by the Taliban's use of IED's, I say the threat is most indeed credible. That captain is allowed to be wrong. I thought it was the Afghan soldiers that disarmed him. The capt. could have thought that they didn't look him over hard enough. I think there is definite reasonable doubt cast with this scenario. The bad thing with IED's is that they can be very easily hidden. It leaves the door open to cap prisoners in the name of personal safety. That said, that is a plausible defense and the one that should have been done. I still think he gets off.

Me and Madmax are saying we shouldn't be getting junk mail in the first place. My 1.95 that goes to the CPC would be better off in my pocket buying candy than being taken from me to fund junk mail. Political parties can raise their own money for their nonsense. Tax dollars should not be used to fund propaganda from any party. The only thing I should be getting in the mail from any political party is their platform.

That depends on what is in the budget. Time is now the Liberal's friend, time to raise funds, time to sell Ignatieff, time to set policy. 300 million is chump change compared to the 30 billion proposal floating out there. It is very likely she will grant an election, did you not see the massive public outrage? It's up to the Liberals when they want an election.

Yet not as big as the king socialist loser of all --- the USSR!!!

Did your toaster tell you what an IED is? It is those things that go boom that have been causing a lot of Canadian casualties. A dying person can most definetely set one off whether it is on his person or in the immediate viscinity. The captain gets to come home, he did his job. Guns aren't the only way soldiers die.

Yes, American freedom. nothing wrong with protecting yourself.

How do any of us know what the soldier was thinking when he shot the insurgent. The soldier has a legitimate defense. For all the soldier could have known, the insurgent could have been wired with explosives and could have pulled a string and blew himself and the capt. to smithereens in his dying breath. That soldier's number one priority is protecting himself, if he thinks that by capping an insurgent ensures that, then he will make his case to the military court. Judging by how crafty the Taliban and insurgents are at planting explosives, that dying corpse is a credible threat. Would you rather see this capt coming home in pieces in a box or having the chance to explain his actions?

That's besides the point.

All he has to do is the "I was playing it safe" and "I was scared for my life" defense. The judge would take that into account when making a decision. It is a weak defense, but then again, there is that case in Alberta posted in local politics that has just as weak as that one. This is up to the judge. But then again war is hell, as AG likes to put it, your first objective is to win. I'm surprised the guy got found out in the first place. I don't blame the capt for shooting the guy, but considering the rules of engagement he is in deep kaka.

By that logic every single Dragon in the Den would be forking out money to every far fetched pitch on the show. If we lend out money to everybody, we will get really rich for sure . No conservative in their right mind would take a risk on skids trying to buy a 300K house, they can live in crap appartments like the rest of them.

and this is why parties should fund themselves, I should not have to pay for this nonsense.

Somehow I see him getting off. the "oops I thought he had a sidearm" defense comes to mind.

I thought I did put it that way earlier on... link to my prev. post #213 I should have put in theory in bold and before my other examples later on, I thought that was implied. I am on Renegade's side of things where both party's rights have to be addressed. Mr. Canada is another story.

Let me be clear I am in 100% agreement with Renegade on this issue. By having an abortion you are directly killing somebody, simple. By not donating an organ, there is a chance that the person could find another one and survive. In Renegade's example, the choice is limited up until brain activity. Above that then the unborn child's rights come into play. With this, both sets of rights are being addressed. As far as forced organ donations, only one side's rights are being consulted. If you can't see that both issues are different, then you are a lost cause.

How would that person know they were a perfect match as a bone marrow donor? Are you advocating that we start body harvesting? Abortion and possible body harvesting are apples and oranges. Carrying a pregnancy to term a la Renegade's proposal does not impede on anyone's rights, mom has chance for an out before brain activity, and the baby once it gets brain activity has a shot at living. Possible body harvesting like you and punked are suggesting is in fact impeding on somebody's rights. Like I said, would you have a problem with Robert Latimer killing his daughter?

How low are we talking about. I'm talking about the guy living on the FN reserve who is too poor to pay income tax and is looking for a tax break when he buys something off reserve

Not directly your not. You are simply not donating an organ, somebody else can step up and donate one. As for the abortion from Renegades POV, you are in fact killing somebody directly, nobody can step up and take the baby's place.

Then cutting the GST would be a good thing then

Israel will negotiate with Hamas, after it kicks the crap out of them like it has to Jordan, Egypt, and the PLO. Better to negotiate from a position of strength not weakness.

And if America pulls its investment out of India, it essentially goes back to being a third world country. Sorry, India is a puppet whether it wants to be or not. Canada is at war, was our economy so bad. The US was at war with Iraq and it's economy is still going (compared to other countries) The US is not broke, no matter how much you want it to be. by that logic Canada was broke in the 80's. As long as other countries value the US currency and keep investing in it, the US can print all the money it wants. This has actually just happened, why hasn't the US dollar did the same thing as the Argentinian dollar. As long as there are no people rolling into the bakery with wheelbarrows full of money, the country is not broke. Considering the numbers used and the light amount of equipment used, Iraq was done on the cheap. The US has armed forces of close to a million people. Were there a million boots on the ground there. So yes it was done on the cheap. it could have cost a lot more and used far more resources. The US like it or not is still the economic powerhouse of the world. It is so powerful it can take the world down with it. It is also so powerful that it can print a large sum of money without losing too much value. The US is still top dog. Just like after being next to broke after the depression it still somehow managed to muster a massive armed forces. It did so once, it can do it again.

That's where stem cell research comes in. That and, there is no direct killing taking place. In theory by performing an abortion, you are killing someone. By not donating an organ, you are simply not donating an organ.

Then you would agree that Robert Latimer had the right to end his daughter's life. By denying the kidney, you are not directly ending a life, but with an abortion you are. Through the threads, Renegade is right on this one.

Might makes right!!

I wouldn't say he's advocating the destruction of an entire people. If that were the case, the IDF would simply march into Gaza and kill everything moving in there. Turning up the intensity doesn't mean genocide. If that were the case in Japan, the U.S. would have dumped one atomic bomb per city and would have cleaned up after with their army. Obviously that did not happen. Hiroshima saved lives of millions of Japanese that would have died had the U.S. land army came in, judging by what happened at Iwo Jima, it would have been a bloodbath. However by showing the Japanese that a city can be wiped out in one shot it forced them to think a little bit, was it dirty pool? Yes, but the U.S. has a war to win and it wants the least Americans dead as possible, or are the lives of Hiroshima victims worth more than American GI's? Now that it has been established that the IDF is not performing genocide, the IDF is in fact however playing hardball. The only way the IDF is going to stop is when the PLO cries uncle. Until the IDF stops there will be dead Palestinian militants and civilians in Gaza. Standard war is beating your opponent to a pulp and stopping when they cry uncle. Genocide is beating your opponent to a pulp, not stopping when they cry uncle, and only stopping when there is nobody left. Unfortunately for the citizens of Gaza, hamas won't cry uncle. This reminds me of the Argentinians vs. British in the falklands. The British had a large group of Argentinian soldiers holed up in a town, the British commanding officer told the Argentinian commander that he would shell the town and any civilian casualties would be the Argentinians fault because they have the option of surrendering and leaving town. Guess what happened? The Argentinian's surrendered and no civilians died that day. The fact that the IDF is leaving surrender as an option is proof that the IDF is not performing genocide. Logic rules the day yet again.

America IMO values India a lot more than Pakistan. It would probably be better for the Indian economy as the US would probably bankroll it. India IMO is America's billion person puppet to keep China in check. India has become the "jewel" again so to speak. America was broke during the great depression, if Iran upsets the US enough, Iran will face wrath. The US fought the Iraq war on the cheap and didn't come close to using it's full potential. As for military use not achieving goals, that depends on what the goals are. Military force has been quite efficient at getting nutbars out of power. Nation building, well that's up to the people of that country, no army can build a country.