myata

Right, Georgia never invaded Ossetia and is being dismembered as we speak. US was attacked by Afghanistan and Iraq in its own territory with ballistic missiles and WMD. "War is peace", who cares.

(double post)

Just to make sure we use correct terminology here - and avoid any further confusion; prior to Georgian assault, Russian peackeepers were in the region legally (US State Dept): Georgia's attacks Thursday night violated both the ceasefire and peacekeeping agreement, so who's the agressor and invader? The question whether Russian response was proportionate should be answered when investigation is complete and all facts are available. And most certainly, in the light of previous similar acts by the NATO and the US (like bombing of Serbia in Kosovo conflict, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan).

That btw happened back in April; some Europeans must have sensed coming trouble and prevented Ukraine and Georgia's ascendance plan. And now, following their recent atticks, Georgians would have to kiss goodbye to NATO for a while, till hotheads cool down a bit (I'd give it at least till the next election; or maybe longer and much longer, depending on how the situation around breakaway regions will develop). Ukraine, on the other hand, could (and probably, should) be accepted, if not in December, then maybe in the near future.

The example bears no relevance to the point that was made; too obvious to explain. It's really funny though to watch these high level leaders, versed and educated in countless legalities, struggling (or twisting) to grasp the very basics of any notion of justice: that is, a deed should be judged on its own merit, no matter who executed it, or what they were thinking. The democracy club still wants to make its own laws and morals, not to be applicable to, or questionnable by, other, lesser folk. And, as it appears, for some strange and unknown reason, them lesser folks, just aren't impressed.

We won't have all the answers right away, but as with all problems, the first step is to recognise it's existence and act. We should investigate, discuss and work out a strategy, set of programs to deal with emerging "hotspots" of violence and crime. Some ideas: - all rational action begins with understanding situation; we need a set of social measurements that can identify emerging trouble at an early stage; this is a task for research; once established, all major cities should start collecting and evaluating these data; currently, many of these have already developed into well recognized problem areas, I can name at least two in my broad neighbourhood. - governments of all levels should come up with resources to deal with "hotspots". This may include e.g., establishing child and youth care programs, assistance with education and employment, etc; - communities should be given legal means to proactively clean themselves of unwanted residents before problems escalate to the criminal level. This may include, 1) zero tolerance on nuisance and crime in publicly owned assisted housing; 2) some form of responsibility of private landlords for their residents; in the sense that they're either obligated to react to community reports of nuisance and/or crime, or carry some material penalty if they fail to do so. - introducing new penalties into administrative and criminal code; concepts like "probation" or "house arrest" or "bail" or "community service" may not appear convincing to somebody used to high levels of violence; on the other hand, use of incarceration may be counter productive for lesser crimes; what comes to mind is e.g. heavy escalating fines and/or confiscation of property. Preferably with some way of sharing responsibility for underage offenders; the aim is to express community's dissatisfication with the act, and determination that further offenses will not be tolerated, in an clear, easily understandable for everybody format. E.g., posession of an illegal weapon, $10,000 (first offense); two, $50,000; and so on.

Nope, that has nothing to do with relativity; only the notion of justice. Which judges deeds on the basis of acts and facts, not who executed whem, and with what motivation. Relative, on the contrary, are the morals of Mr Bush and the like; any questionable, illegal or atrocious act can be deemed "good" if its perpetrator happen to belong to a certain preselected group. As there's hardly anything new under this Sun, such an arrangement is usually known as "feodalism". You are free to add democratic adjectives if it would make any difference.

Certainly that would be one part of the problem. The culture (including that of violence) will move with people, and it takes at least a generation to dissipate (hopefully). The problem is, nobody wants to leave stable prosperous societies; countries in the need of constant influx of workforce will have to rely on less developed, more volatile sources. It's another question of course, whether mass immigration is really the answer to our problems; it's a different and very large issue in its own right. Regarding the rest, I certainly find the very existence of such areas free of law enforcement a major sign of a trouble. Maybe the whole system of law enforcement / justice is too reactive; it only kicks in once the trouble becomes visible. Ideally, targeted specific program of actions should kick in immediately after a "risk area" has been identified, and long before it develops into a full blown ghetto. Such a program would involve an array of complementary approaches, on social, community, and law enforcement side; I'd love to see some government (probably not this responsible one) invest into development and practical operation of such program throughout the country; that would do much more to actually reducing violent crime than all the empty "get tough" rhethoric (not to be mistaken, targeted programs should include zero tolerance on crime as one of its elements).

I'd wait with doomsday scenarios for a moment, till things clear out a bit. Here's my take on what could happen in the next couple of days; we'll see how it'll actually play out. #1 There will be no attack on Georgia's capital, no invasion and no regime change; Russian troops will pull back into breakaway regions in the next couple of days; Russian generals were given a brief window to dismantle as much of Georgia's military as they could squeeze in that time. #2 Russia will not sign the ceasefire agreement, not in its current formula (actually I'll bet 70/30 against them signing). #3 Russia will maintain strong presence in the breakaway regions. If they play smart, they'll invest into reconstruction and economic development, encourage free elections, and should the elected government so decide, a free referendum on cessation from Georgia. But that's really too far. For now it's back to status quo with strengthened Russian position in the breakaway zones, and trust between Russia and the West at the lowest point since the end of cold war. And here's why. They (russians) got extremely disappointed (to use a polite word) with Western (mostly American) double talk in the matter. They stood by their mission, against an all out onslaught, and all they got in return was condemnation and lecturing. Following West's failure to react to the initial attacks by Georgia in an impartial manner, they are now showing that Western talk means nothing to them and all further developments will be on their own terms. Which is sad, but predictable. Dealing under the table, double talk and meddling is hardly the way to lasting trust and understanding. In conclusion, the sheer hypocrisy of American polemics is truly amazing. 3,000 of dead civilians in WTC resulted in two all out wars with uncounted further civilian deaths; that wasn't in any way "disproportionate"; rather, the right thing to do. Now, half of that count in South Osetia, with nowhere near same ferocity of response, and here we go. Oh well.

Indeed, I have to be very careful with terminology to avoid any possibility of confusion; or one'd think we need serious military help from other nations to deal with our internal issues, like e.g. biker gangs, or Toronto snowfalls. Kudos for writing, the difference between real constitution and the paper one though, is that the former actually means something. To the people, not the government to show off. And if it means something to the people, if they understand rights and freedoms it's all about, they'll be able to defend it. That's one thing you can't seem to grasp. The freedom, rights, etc, it comes from within. It's either there, or it's not. Can't be planted from outside. The comment only applied to branding the local people into good (i.e those who support us) and evil (everybody else). Army isn't responsible for political decision to get involved in this conflict. This decision, taken by the Liberals, and particularly, the later one to get involved in active combat operations, was wrong. Even more, because it was taken without serious public discussion. Whatever role some top ranking members may have played in that decision, it was still exclusive responsibility of the government, government that is elected by us. So, indeed we all bear some responsibility for what's going on there, as well as future consequences of our actions. I don't want to do it once again, I think we already established, that Al Qaeda and Taleban were two different things. US and NATO had options to deal with Al Quaeda without regime change. They could have brought charges for Taleban's alleged crimes against humanity to the international justice. If confirmed and condemned, it would give them cause to take actions to force Taleban stop crimes against humanity. And that's it. That's as far as anybody should go. There would be no need to assist anybody against anybody else, because there would be already a government in the country. The government that would stand or fall based on traditions and ways of local people, and not some foreign ideas, like elections. We already discussed it, election is the final manifistation of democracy, not it's beginning. There's no point in running an election where population does not understand what it means. And again, to avoid possibility of confision, the meaning of representative democracy is not in where to put a cross in the poll, but understanding full well the role and operation of responsible government, and will to obey and defend it, if necessary. How much of that was in Afghanistan before NATO's arrival? Had it miraculously changed, overnight, with the arrival of Bush's glorious demorcacy project? You don't need a link for every step in your life, some basic math skills will do instead. 15 million of adult male Afghans who can bear arms... against "a few thousand" <sic> Taleban ... (that's over 1,500 of locals per one Taleban) and they still need 50,000 foreigners armed to the top of their heads and more .... (that's 5+ foreign soldiers per one Taleban) and that's not enough (by your own admission). Something doesn't connect... What? Population's support for the democracy project? Taleban numbers? Both? Why do we need answer these calls of assistance against internal opposition? Why do we need to get involved in their internal problems? Because we like this side better than that? The result is rarely a triumph of democracy; more like friendly dictatorship as long as they keep in the line. That's being our policy so far; whach resulted in occasional blowbacks, a la Iran, Taleban, Al Quada; that necessitated more of the same policy. And so on. Looks like you won't be out of job anytime soon (sorry to say that, but it's just a quite likely direction these policies tend to develop into). Really? Sorry, can't take the credit, after all that's what the idea of the masterminds of this adventure (Bush & Co). It's enough to descend upon them in our glory, and they'll abandan the ways and traditions they followed for generations, embrace us and praise and cheer. Which isn't at all what I was saying. Can speak for majority but I thought of it more as of our traditional peacekeeping mission. The combat part in Kandahar was a complete surprise and I didn't like it at all precisely for the reason that it mires us in the internal conflict of a faraway country that we barely understand. I emphasize.. but there're problems when nothing can be done; i.e. not right away, which only time will sort out. We can make it worse by our clueless meddling; or we can go with the time, and hope that with good policies, and open and honest dealing, things would eventually turn to the better. I really think that you guys should come home, the sooner, the better. For everybody. What I don't know is how it can be brought about. I think it is; only the matter of what "assistance" means. Assistance in more fighting (and we do foster more fighting, even unwillingly, by our very presence there, and by artificially propping an underdog who wouldn't stand on their own) is certainly not. No, some options must be out of question, because they go against our principles. Fighting in our people's wars should be one of them. Sorry, it wasn't meant to be offensive; or presumptious; only a response to the request for more firepower to turn somebody to democracy sooner; it may not happen anytime soon, and much could be wasted in the process; wouldn't it be better to use where there's a better chance of success?

Simply because when Bush, or you, use the word you won't tell (or maybe, don't know?) what it means. Its as soft and stretchy as a spandex sock. Here, we see it, there, we won't. For these folks, it means nothing more than "we need a good reason to go there". Otherwise, why would US resist attempts to establish real international justice system to prosecure war crimes wherever (and by whoever) they were committed (International Criminal Court)? How is it relevant to the topic in question? Should current US administration be blamed for nuking Hiroshima, or atrocities in Vietnam? (not that it's relevant and FYI, it isn't my government). There're many conflicting stories. International community should keep cool head and focus efforts on restoring peace as the utmost priority. Taking one side, especially the one that escalated the conflict, does very little to achieve that. If Russian manuevers in Georgia proper are indeed confirmed, and they aim at a full invasion, rather than some tactical border activities (which e.g. Isreal does routinely in Palestine and Lebanon, with full support of the US), I'll be concerned and call for immediate stop to that. Finally, to prevent similar incidents from reoccuring in the future, it'll do us all a lot of good to have the affair investigated thoroughly and deeply. People have died where they shouldn't have, and somebody somewhere should be held responsible. And if somebody else, as suggested in the thread, was encouraging them to stir the water, they should at least be brought out into the spotlight. So that everybody could see the reverse side of lecturing peace. Dream on. And american excuse for invading Vietnam? But wait, are you actually saying that Georgia did not start shelling the capital and didn't send their troops in massive numbers? That seems to contradict all the information I've seen so far, maybe you'd have some sort of evidence to substantiate that?

This is not in the least due to our very flexible approach to international justice, which is all about "rights" there and see no evil here. Others are just doing the same. If, instead of bucketload of spandex "rights", we came with a small set of truly fundamental rights, like rights to life and individual freedom; if instead of hopeless Security Council, torn this way and that by conflicting interests, we came with an independent and impartial justice system to monitor these rights around the globe (to which, to mention, one of the greatest champions of "rights" in the histroy continues to object vehemently); there would be much more credibility to calls to stop massive violations of rights, whenever and wherether they may occur; more willingness to contribute to maintaining the rights, and decisively stop their violations; much less desire to cooperate with those who do not observe or violate these rights. This is now the task for the next age. After Iraq, Palestine, Kosovo, and so on, Western (US, specifically) standards of international justice (or lack of them) have lost all credibility.

Not sure which category this topic should go into, as it definitely has implications on all levels of government. The reports about riots in Montreal are running since yesterday night on all Quebec channels (CBC story). The riots have been sparkled by shooting of a Haitian youth, three police officers are injured. This is highly reminiscent of similar incidents in Europe. I doubt there's a quick solution to this problem but it appears that hotspots are almost invariably focused around some ethnic ghetto. Any ideas?

Putin's and Bush's? Of course. Grab as much as you can to the tune of good goodness talk - maybe somebody could still get duped (there's always that hope - and it (talk) is cheap and doesn't hurt anyways). Well they aren't doing Iraq, and haven't done Vietnam and Cuba before that. That's something. Though I'd much prefer we'd keep out of foreign military adventures as a matter of principle, rather than intuition.

I've no problems with Pepsi; only with Bush's foreign policies. As a matter of fact, it's only the least disagreeable of the alternatives. I don't really like the the stuff, too much sugar, and the taste's unnatural. To Argus: as mentioned earlier, personal insults, to me, are a sure sign that the opponent is running out of all other (i.e logical, rational, intelligent, meaningful) arguments. I understand, you want to say something, but it just isn't coming through right. Don't be sad now - there's always next time.

Can we have enough of the "human rights" soap opera already? It's quickly becoming boring. It's used as a well stretched male birth control appliance whenether there's a need to justify questionnable acts or policies. Let's just look at the acts and forget glorious words for now. Bush wanted regime change in Iraq, and US army conquered Iraq. Putin may very well want regime change in Georgia, but Russians aren't yet invading its proper territory. US attacked Iraq completely unprovoked; Russian observers in Osetia, by all indications, were first attacked by Georgia. The bottom line is, by involving yourself in these highly questionnable adventures you lose any claim to moral position. It's now all about balance of forces and powers, and from that perspective we all know that neither US, nor EU will risk direct conflict with Russia on behalf ot its protege. Full stop. From that point of view, Argus, indeed the regime in Russia may be corrupt and brutal; it's just that the choice between them and Bush's administration, at least in the international politics is as hard as it ever gets. And so, I choose ... Pepsi!

And look who's now talking about "disproportionate response"! Not the same people perchance who started Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Certainly not those who bombed Belgrade during Kosovo crisis? Wow. Such a shameless hypocrisy sure calls for a special, out of ordinary, talent.

And now everybody get ready for a lecture, with honest, earnest and straight face (i.e after Kosovo) about how the territorial sovereignty of their protege should be maintained at all cost.

What can one expect? Once the big brother showed the way of establishing constitutional order, the lesser vassals decided to follow by example.

Then "freely elected" government can defend itself. If it was really and freely elected that is. There'd be nothing for NATO to do, except may be sharing information and training. That this freely elected government cannot control its own territory, means very simple that it's not even an independent government per se, but a puppet of foreign powers. If not, you'll be able to tell me how long it'd stand on its own, if NATO were to withdraw. Please give a direct answers without ifs and buts. They sure may be. We'll see it when they'll define these rights and protect them on their own, without foreign meddling. Why have you decided that they need us speaking for them? You're saying. They grew up and lived their lives there. You - here. Who appointed you to decide who's doing what? Tell who should be doing what? Peace that means dropping bomds. Paradoxes... Right, right, the government. Government that stands propped by our troops. See above. In any case, you just won't simple question, one more time: if all these rights is what majority of population understands and wants, wouldn't they be able to stand for them on their own?? With our help, of course, but without our military intervention? That was a story that was proudly broadcasted on CBC radio awhile ago. A bag of grain (a highly valuable commodity) handed down for each child attending school, with emphasis (I can't recall now, maybe double amount) on female attendance. I'll try to find a reference if you strongly object that the practice exists. My point wasn't that though. If you promise something to which majority isn't ready (if they're ready, they'll simply have it on their own), you become responsible, at least in part for the fate of those who believed you. Is it a wise thing to barge into foreign societies and press them into something they don't know and aren't ready for? Your say. Why? To suppress the part of population that isn't ready to accept our way of life? You think it's a worthy undertaking for our military? Wouldn't the same resources be better spend saving little girls and boys (need references??) here, in our land, where we at least supposed to understand what's going on in our own country?

No. You're trying to rebuild their society by our standard. Making bad guys stop would involve, first of all, agreeing on what constitutes fundamental human rights. Not the balloon rights (democracy, freedom of press, yada) that are taken out of pocket whenever needed to preach and invade. But those rights that most, 99.9% of stable societies uphold; like right to life; or personal freedom. Note that male homosexuality, or female literacy won't be one of those fundamental universal freedoms. Which doesn't in any way mean that we shouldn't have them. Only that we can't go around the world forcing them on people who aren't ready to adopt them, whenever we find it convenient. And once everybody in on the same page regarding real Rights (as opposed to ephemerial declarations of rights), it won't be hard (compared to the cost of reeducating entire society) to stop people who allow and perpetrate mass violation of those rights. Simply by applying pressure where it hurts most, until desired outcome is achieved. Which is, the restoration of fundamental rights. Not 100% female literacy; not pluralistic democracy; not freedom of press. It does mean that they can't have these freedoms; only that they'll have them at the time and in the form of their choosing, rather than our liking; When we come and promise this thing and that, some, small and more advanced part of society may buy in. Where most, majority, won't, simply because they aren't ready. Because it took our own civilization centuries of bloody wars to get where we're now. So, then the society resists, hurts those early adopters of foreign ideals, it's our guilt more than those who resist. After all, they are in their own land, defending their own way of life. They aren't obliged to follow our laws, traditions and morals. Only theirs. And I'm not. The line is where the fundamental rights of life and personal freedom are. Mass infringements of these rights are crime against humanity and should be stopped immediately. Installation of foreign way of life (whether called "civilization", "democracy", or "socialism") where there's no conditions for that and by force is nothing short of unprovoked interference and should be a crime in its own right. This would sound plausible; if female literacy was a long standing Afghan tradition and evil aliens came down to stop it. As it stands though, you're introducing into their traditional society something that was never there. Something that many deem foreign and unacceptable. Just because you've grown up holding it dear does not make it normal way of life for people on the other side of the world. So, then people who bought into your promise of literacy, democracy, etc, get drawn in the middle of conflict, with often sad for them consequences, whose guilt it is? Those who resist, because they are "evil"? Or you, because you do something, without understanding full consequences of your acts? I'll try to help. Would that girl suffer the same fate, if her father didn't buy into promises of well meaning foreigners (often accompanied by a lure of worry free food supply - there, you send your kid to school, you get a bag of grain, we report the progress of female education) who in the end could not ensure their safety?

No, no don't repeat the same thing over and again. Crime against humanity must be confirmed in a legitimate justice process, or it'll be just another word for "I need a good reason to go in and set things up to my liking". As "you're barbarian and need civilization" before. And then and if it's confirmed, one still does not need to go in and remake them; only make the perpetrators of crime stop; methods for that exist and were discussed already. If you can change one single mind by force, set them on the right path with your oozing goodness, why not get busy with it in Vancouver west side first?? If you can't, then what's the point of that oozing goodness? To drop a few bombs, get kicked out, and watch the worst tyrant than before emerge? As after Soviet invasion? As after interference in Iran? Those buddies, the same ones who make our righteous blood boil with anger, they are partly of our own making. Clueless meddling, based at best on some far fetched ideals, and at worst, on coldblooded calculation, causes the same kind of suffering and death as tyranny. Understand this; that isn't our culture; they are different; they can do things that we don't like and don't accept. They don't have to be like us. And we shouldn't try to make them like us; with whatever justification. Imagine not so far fetched (and already used) example with well meaing aliens teaching us (by force if necessary - it's for own good, after all) to adopt environental ways to save our planet? Which side would you be on? Not to say that the example has any relation to the point being discussed; as I mentioned (try to read carefully), the mechanisms exist to stop a crime against humanity in progress. These mechanisms should be used decisively and relentlessly, until objective is achieved. And that's as far as anyone should go. I don't really like this "good / bad" argument. It has little meaning. Taleban fighter thinks that you're incarnation of evil who came from far away to change their traditions and life. Good fighting bad vs bad fighting good. Try to show actual real difference from them, by not doing the same thing as them (ie. conquering by force). If the ideas we wanted to bring are indeed popular, I just don't see why Afghans themselves won't be able to control their land. You won't ever be able to logically explain this, because no logical explanation exists. The only hope on which the designers of the project count, is that with keeping them under our boot long enough (maybe, for generations) would make them adopt our ways. Whatever chance of success this strategy may have, it's not the right way to invest our resources and our lives. With that I can agree. Too bad that we have a stupendous process to push a pen in a xyz office one half of an inch, but invading another country for no reason only takes a minute backdoor decision. Just shows us, and everybody, how advanced our democracy really is. How ready we are to go and teach the others.

I wonder what happened to Hitler's driver?! That sure must have been one serious nazi sympathizer (or even mastermind, with a right investigation technique). Then, victor's justice was only in its baby stage back then.

You aren't getting it. We shouldn't be going to other people with arms to fight on their land, other than pure and strictly in self defense against real ongoing attack. There's no objective that would justify this. That is also not a valid reason to blast the country out and reengineer it. That could have been a valid reason - not for an educational invasion, but an action to halt a crime against humanity in progress. If confirmed by legitimate justice process (the link, for all the tragic information provided in it, is a hearsay). The opportunity for which (legitimate justice process) has been lost in a hurried and unnecessary invasion. Certainly adds much weight to your argument. And, try to understand, that when many good people would have had enough, they will take control into their hands. You just can't tell others how they should live their lives. You can't think for them, even if in your mind its for their own sake. Think of this: if this was possible, why would we have problems, of poverty, crime, low education, here, in Canada, in our very own culture which we suppose to understand completely and absolutely? And with virutally unlimited (compared to foreign projects) resources? You can certainly use this adage to dispell questions and concerns about the mission. I come to kill somebody. I want to think that I'm good. So, they must be bad. The exit from the circle is not in introducing sophisticated mechanisms to determince who's actually good and otherwise, but to not go to kill Interesting; so the same act should be judged good or otherwise, based on what perpetrator thinks or believes? E.g a beliver who blasts into a house killing a few bystanders on the way, because they believe something evil is going on, is any better that somebody who robs and kills for the money?? Very convenient... but hardly new. Anything, all questionable bad and ugly acts were always justified by a want to do goodness.

Again, "the babies" thing. The babies who died of our bomb strikes die happy and for a great cause. That makes one huge heck of the difference. And all the babies whose lives will likely be screwed up following our clueless messing up in their affairs. Anyways, the difference between real assistance and foreign aventures to impose ideology, government, way of life has been explained. It's not about "who gives a damn", but what you do. You can of course ignore it and keep on marching along to the sound of propaganda slogans. Let's just agree that we go to these places to kill. The rest, as has been explained, is very much a matter of terminology. Does this signify the official end of your logical, rational argumentation?