carepov

Looks like you made a mistake: "Editor's Note: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Dr. Patrick Moore is a lobbyist for Monsanto. A statement from Monsanto says that Dr. Moore is not and has never been a paid lobbyist for their company. This version has been corrected." http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/27/monsanto-herbicide-roundup-cancer_n_6959300.html

It is not clear to me what Monsanto has to do with Golden Rice. They don't seem to be saying much about it. Unlike, these people: http://www.goldenrice.org/Content1-Who/who1_humbo.php http://www.gatesfoundation.org/what-we-do/global-development/agricultural-development/golden-rice http://irri.org/golden-rice?gclid=CMP3qP2p6cQCFYY_aQodKHUAHA To borrow a phrase: "the science is settled". Golden Rice is safe and effective. People, like members of Greenpeace, that actively work to delay the development of Golden Rice are allowing this to continue in such high numbers: http://imgbuddy.com/vitamin-a-deficiency-blindness.asp

Who is "they"?

I beg to difer, as do the world leaders in public education: "The focus in education is on learning rather than testing. There are no national tests for pupils in basic education in Finland. Instead, teachers are responsible for assessment in their respective subjects on the basis of the objectives included in the curriculum" http://www.oph.fi/english/education_system

This was a discussion about Golden Rice: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23126-greenpeaces-crime-against-humanity/?hl=%2Bgolden+%2Brice

Some of the principle values that I want my Canada to promulgate is tolerance and the freedom to do what you want, wear what you want and say what you want (as long as it doesn't infringe the rights of others). Another value that I would like to see promulgated is for Canada to stop wasting our time and resources on petty issues like this and move on to solving more important issues.

Au contraire, mon Omar. The more interaction a country has with the US the more developed it is. You do know that the worldwide poverty rate is also at a historic low, n'est pas?

In general yes you are correct; usually the costs of affirmative action programs outweigh the benefits. There are some instances where there is a net benefit to society or businesses. Diversity is an asset. For example, if you were looking for a real estate agent and saw two broker ads, one with only male, white faces at one broker with diverse faces... The key is to implement these programs only where they are needed and at minimal cost. There are benefits to having a significant number of aboriginal RCMP officers that serve in Native communities. These officers will help build good relationships and are good role models. Increasing aboriginals in post-secondary institutions and reducing those in jails are two other examples. There are likely good programs for women but I cannot think of any right now.

And yet the world is a less violent place than ever before. Worldwide, the cummulative deaths of violence (1%) and war (0.3%), are less than suicide (1.5%) or car accidents (2%) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

America is made up of many individual Americans.

Are you saying that America deserves no credit for any of the progress seen in the last 100 years?

I would be interested if you could describe some of these things. Also, as I've asked earlier, when you are judging the American Empire, which empire(s) are you comparing it to?

OK. I don't fully agree but I can see your point.

You are as biased as the most extreme pro-Americans. Trying to be more objective would greatly improve your credibility.

I'm glad that you see the "victors hypocrisy". If not "war crime", what term do you propose for the unnecessary killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians?

I'm sure that you would agree that those convicted of war crimes are almost certainly on the loosing side, no?

I am not a court (nor a general nor a historian) just an online poster and I judge that the dropping the bomb on Nagasaki and the bombing of Dresden were not warranted by military necessity, and therefore war crimes. Some sitauations are depatable, to to me it is obvious, based on how the was was going Again, your naivite shines brightly. Even bc2004 agrees. You seriously don't think the hypothetical German or Japanese general that ordered the A-bomb would have been charged and convicted with war crimes?

I don't get it. How could one loose a war, and yet call it "not a mistake"? OK, but imagine how much more power the US would have had if they had not blundered. Your taxes would prbably be lower too. No.

Up until now, in my book, giving someone "the benefit of the doubt", meant "trusting them". I will rephrase and state that giving rulers the benefit of the doubt is naive. Abu Ghraib is a good example to give Omar. What other power is history would ever enable such self-reflection and criticism? If the Germans or Japanese had dropped atomic bombs on two Allied cites 3 days apart, would they be war crimes?

It looks like a defection to me. Your opinions that Vietnam and Iraq 2003 were not mistakes are contrary to conventional wisdom. I was hoping that you could elaborate a little more, given that it seems so obvious to me that both wars greatly diminished US power and to me are obvious mistakes that should not be repeated.

I was following the conversation until this post. Can you explain?

Mostly agree. I am not labelling all mistakes as war crimes, just a few of them. Do you think that the West has committed any war crimes in the last 70 years? First: Have you read the Prince by Machiavelli ? Your trust of rulers is naive. Second: You are making Omar's point. "Changing the rules" is exactly what the army of US-led Western sycophants do all the time. It is OK for us to invade, but not Russia. It is OK for us to torture, trust us. It is OK for us to kill extra-judiciously, we have a system.

Hypotheticaly, the CIC turns to you for advice on the eve of these wars, what advice would you give?

So if you could go back, you would do it all over again?

Perhaps. My main point is that the US has shown unprecedented restraint in exercising its power.