Charles Anthony

Let me go off tangent too and say that all we need is to have smaller countries. At which point, state power will be balanced by the power to negotiate between countries.

I agree with the description in the True Opening Post [not the anti-fire-arms opening post, I do not want to hijack this thread] but I disagree with the conclusion. I disagree because there will always be men, including maybe gays, to keep a balance.Permit me to slip a recommendation for what I believe is one of the most excellent movies from the past decade: In The Company Of Men (1997) Warning: the movie is cold-hearted to put it mildly -- one of the blackest comedies I have seen.

I am putting this here even though the thread is poorly titled. This lady had her second child taken away from her and put up for adoption. National Post CTV.caThis is a horrifying travesty of justice. Taking children away from their parents can be devastating, in my opinion. Her other children will grow up knowing that they were wrongly taken away from their parents by the state and the state was wrong. They will also grow up knowing that there is no way of correcting the wrongdoing or to make anybody accountable.

I do not believe that. I believe more Canadians care that prisoners of war -- regardless of who they are -- are treated humanely. You do not. I think you are confused about who sent you on this Mission. It is frustrating to me to hear you say that "the Canadian people" sent you to Afghanistan. Only a select few Canadians had any choice in the matter and most Canadians were not consulted. I am Canadian and I did NOT send you on a mission to Afghanistan. Excellent point.

Count my part of your "public" approval out. Here is one more option: pull the Canadian troops out of Afghanistan and give The Authority of Afghanistan money to hire mercenaries or security guards.

Jurist[i hope this citation is good enough for some of the active veteran meMBers of the forum.] What do you propose? To be able to act independently of any individual country, such a hypothetical "global police force" would need to master an extreme amount of force. It would also need financing. I doubt that is possible except for in a dream. JuristWho will win: the Italian intelligence agents or the Italian government or the Italian prosecutors? Since the American agents have already left Italy, hopefully members of the CIA will just passively watch on the sidelines. Italy-who? Who exactly is custodying the custodians?

Call me lazy. I quit after the second page because I had a hard time getting through all of the ridiculous questions.

I would like to take issue with one aspect of your statement. You are treating them as prisoners of war - fine. They are also subjects of interrogation too. The methods of interrogation represent true horror. The Opening Post suggests that Canadian forces are knowingly handing people over to it and are thus, in my eyes, complicit. Whether we agree with such horrifyingly evil abuses or not, at the very least we should pause and ask: "Is this going to strengthen public support for this Mission or will it hinder support?" -- and so it should. Canadian should ask themselves: "Who are we supporting in Afghanistan?"

This is being discussed in the Gordon O'Connor Once Again Under Pressure -- Latest Afghan abuse claims... thread also. I think it is absurd because it is abduction and kidnapping. Rather than asking "What do we do if the Afghan authorities might torture them???" Canadians should say "Wait a minute here!!!! We are co-operating with an evil authority in Afghanistan."

Afghanistan is NOT a "sovereign" country.

How does "certainty in the afterlife" cheapen the reality of the earthly life or make the living dispensable?

This is distressing. It clearly demonstrates that Muslims are not the only backwards people to stone people to death. What is more important to me is recognizing that both Yazidis and Muslims were travelling together on the same bus. Nothing. People will always be "religious" no matter what. You will never be able to change that. Most people have a blind devotion or obedience to something: pop music; fame; sports; the glorious almighty authority of The State; church; their job; whatever. What you CAN do is simply deal with their actions and forget about what motivates their actions.

expropriated from the Leader defies court order -- More Native turmoil thread I'm confused. Who are you referring to here? The Natives or the people who would civilize them through force?If tey want to forgo government benefits, and other benefits of "whitey" civilization, more power to them. But only if they surrender any arms and go back to the bow and arrow for fighting.I think that is a backward way of attributing a connection between "government benefits" and civilization. Should they give back their hoola-hoops and VHS and hockey or lacrosse gear too????

This would put a lot of people (tax planners, advisors, accountants and the vast majority of the public servants who work for RevenueCanada/I.R.S.) out of work -- not that I am objecting.

Call it what you want. To make a long story short: you will refuse to pay taxes. Now, do not get me wrong. Trust me, I believe you are in the right and I will not fault you for refusing to pay taxes. However, your "business plan" is unoriginal. I am sure there are many people who do the same. My suspicion is that their success is a function of how private their highly original plans are kept. I have one question for you: Why the fanfare? While I am at it. This: is a peculiar statement. Do you know something about how police officers operate that we do not know?

This: is an outrageous statement. I believe most of our environmental problems are a direct result of the transportation industry. Reflexively, people find it absolutely normal to expect the State to subsidize transportation. You guys can make the logical connection.

No. I am not talking about that.

How should that be determined?

No. I insist on being a stickler. The term "expropriation" explicitly implies the property owner must accept the government's offer. I do not understand. Please explain with more details. What do you propose to be different from buying any other real estate? The way I see it, an effective mechanism already exists: make an offer and bargain.

I do not agree with it but is being attempted across the ocean. The Guardian Makes sense to me. It would probably be cheaper too.

Yes, it does really mattter because No, the consumer is not going to pay everything in the end. Otherwise, producers would continuously raise prices. At some point, consumers will purchase less and as a result, the producers will sell less. It seems like you know that:

I agree. However, this "signal" can be sent with different actions. The property did not have to be expropriated. It could have been bought. Alternatively, the statesmen could have also offered a generous grant to the property owner.

I think it is spam.

Forget about judging the sleaziness of Winnipeg or Montreal or New York or any other city. I am sure people will find sleaze anywhere they want throughout the world or take advantage of the business opportunity. This: worries me. Let us look at this situation objectively -- assuming we confer the honor and authority of statesmen to confiscate anybody's property. My guess is that this proposed cultural center will be no more desirable nor profitable than the current peep show. Otherwise, why would the current property owner have not done it himself? Personally, I think it is safer to have "sleazy" behavior out in the open. That current cross-street is probably the ideal spot.

Welcome, to the forum JackO2.