Oddman

That's the million dollar question. I think Bush should be impeached as soon as possible - but then I worry about having a President Cheaney to deal with. But then again, maybe we already do have that. I do not think America should cut and run, but I think every time an Iraqi soldier is considered 'battle-ready' one American soldier should go home. I am not familiar with the battalion numbers neccessary for a completely functional unit so maybe for every two Iraqi soldiers who are ready one American goes home. Either way, troops should be shrinking as we speak. When all is said and done, whenever that may be, I hope the Haugue do call in Rumsfeld and Bush, even though they would never be touched by an international court. The symbolism of the world saying "Yeah, you are the only superpower but this does not mean we are going to let you waltz into the sunset" would be satisfactory and would help international relations with whoever is elected in 2008.

Killjoy, However eloquant, I find you skim over some very imprtant aspects when describing I raq. Especially the area you touch on when you claim that Iraq only began to get bad when Abu Ghraib took place. It began with the deliberate attempt to mislead people's perception of how dangerous Saddam was to America. Inspectors were saying almost exclusively that Saddam had no WMDs. If you believe that Bush and the administration were simply fed bad intelligence I think you might be naive. And the alternative is heinous - to lie in order to justify an invasion of another nation. Then, the ultimate flimsy excuse - "Saddam was an evil dictator." If that is what make a nation a candidate to get attacked then there are several who would have been ahead of Iraq. And I know you want me to say the word 'oil', after all, isn't that what all the lefty, windbag conspiracy theorists think." "Dude, this war is a war for oil, man...." Sadly, this happens to be true. But the beating drum of FOX News , Pat Roberston, Bill O'Reilly and the entire administration kept hammering away at the evil of Saddam, but chose to ignore countries who were already nuclear strapped nations AND had evil dictators (i.e. - North Korea). At the same time they dismiss the notion that it's about oil as "left propaganda", a ploy to make people think that we're all X Files junkies with too vivid imaginations. You sound intelligent - you must know that war and economics go hand in hand. So why is it a justification for war? Yes, Russia has done terrible things - but the reason America is singled out is so obvious it should blind you. They are the only superpower. As the only superpower you are the only one with the capabilites to simply invade a nation after making up lies as to why. No other nation could have gotten away with what took place. Shock and Awe killed an estimated 5ooo civilians, and people shrug and say "It's just the realities of war." Then add the Abu Prison Scandal. Then add GITMO. WHat other nation could up and say "We're taking them here...shut up, we don't 'recognize' international law on this one." No other nation could do this, and America isn't the only country that counts. As far as the history you are correct, America is far from the only nation who has a terrible history. It is violent as hell however, and it continues today. WW2 is something that America can be proud of, even though I think if the atomic bomb were used it should have landed on Germany, not Japan. Now, as the only nation ever to actually use a nuclear WMD, they are the so-called police making sure certain nations are exempt from the club. Not that I think it is wrong to not allow Iran to create one, but don't make up that Iraq does, especially when you have more than the world combined. If Bush were the leader of any other nation he would be a war criminal.

No, sorry, I don't know that. I murderous tyrant has been removed from power and the Arab world's first democracy has taken his place. These are both facts, not opinions or spin. So let's get something clear: do you support people who desert for reasons of concience in general or only for reasons of concience that you find personably agreeable? Because if you're advocating a general principle, it must be that individuals should be able to choose whether or not they want to fight in any particular war regardless of the commitments they've made or their responsibility to the common good. Which makes raising an army a bit tricky. Which makes winning any particular war a bit tricky. If our forefathers had shared your view I'd be typing this in German, or Russian. And if you aren't advocating a general principle, then you're just advocating these soldiers' spineless refusal to uphold their oaths as a means of justifying your own skewed take on this war, or more accurately on this American president. I advocate the will it takes to be able to say "This war is wrong as was based on lies." More people die in Iraq since the removal of Saddam. No, I don't think he was a good man, eveil even. But don't kid yourself - Iraq is a much worse place today and your chances of getting killed there has increased since the illegal invasion. No offence, but your forefathers were slave traders, so I don't really care what language you speak. I love Americans, by the way. Even the blind ones who follow an idiot like George Bush. But the military history of your country is disgusting. One would think that today we live in a world where that kind of military machine would slow down for the sake of peace but to no avail. And when i hear people talk about skewed views I wonder what they mean. If you are saying that I am not only against the war, but unwilling to forget how it started then sure, call my view skewed.

What are any of the countries you cited, meaning Iran, Korea and Venezuela doing, that the U.S. isn't doing or hasn't done? Is it just natural for western citizens to believe that America is the only nation authourized to build up military prowess?

Literally thousands of doctrines written by Chinese scholars have been discovered to be forged from their students who are slowl surpassing their elders in many areas of intellectual prowess. And if Tibet is any example, China is still very far away from being a model country.

I don't understand - are you comparing scumbag bikers to army deserters? And if so, what do they have in common (other than the tired argument that they both break the law, because clearly a biker is much more dangerous than a deserter).

There is no rational reason to oppose extending marriage to same sex couples. The so called reasons offered by opponents are generally irrelevant or contradictory. The leads many to conclude that the real motivation for opposing SSM is homophobia. Let's be real here - for the most part, those who live in places like Saskatchewan, Alberta and the richer areas of Ontario would be the ones who do not support SSM. So if you live in Alberta right now, why would you care about the people near Church and Wellesley in Toronto? This debate makes my head hurt - and whoever it is that stated that when they cite the messages in the Bible (their name escapes me) that they are "only expressing what the truth is", I think you need to get off your religiously-centric horse and join a debate where your blind faith to a book doesn't always get pulled out of your back pocket like an ace.

Some believe it is a psychological error for a human being to allow an ancient book to dictate their morals in the modern world. It would be like the world coming to an end and in 2000 years someone finds a preserved DVD copy of the Lord of the Rings Triology. I bet there would be people who would think that Frodo or Gandolf were prophets.

I think the # is 20 deserter out of a few hundred thousand who have served in Iraq and afghan. So there really aren't "many" deserters at all. So basically, what the hell are you talking about? Basically, I am talking about the choice some soldiers have made to desert - they did so because they did not want to be a part of the administrations murderous campaign for economics. I've had discussions with soldiers before - they defend every atrocity commited by the military, saying it was caused by stress or that they were following orders. Reminds me of good cops who don't report the abuses comitted by their fellow officers. Bravo to the 20 who decided they would not let the government turn them into killers...because by now everyone knows they aren't liberating anything.

Well I did bring it up, in order to raise the question as to why Bush has not been impeached yet (there's still hope I suppose), but you decided in an earlier post to defend that Clinton was in fact brought to task for lying about head while under oath. So I would say I was speaking to you. And if pointing out that a blow job is relaxing is uncomfortable for you then I do apologize...

Most of them are suburbs...after immalgimation (sp?), city services were gutted and all of a sudden certain public resources were stretched to the limit. Suburbs (bedroom communities) - Markham, Pickering, West Etobicoke Mississauga is not part of the GTA as they are a city with their own Mayor. Pickering's west side borders on the GTA, but the GTA's population does not include its residences.

Other Constitutional Rights lil Brittney could have done - brandished a rifle in her warm, alive hand - referenced Allah - took off her top Freedoms are everywhere, but she as a validictorian should not be using the microphone to express personal religious beliefs...she is representing her entire class, not just herself. You shouldn't be so protective over your religion. Just believe what you want and don't force others to listen to your references...unless of course you are cool with other people with special interests invading your ears with their beliefs.

WHat do you think puts the lives of their comrades in more danger - deserting or torturing civilians? Many deserters could not stomach the actions of their fellow soldiers. Many could not stomach the actions of their commanding officers. Personally, I would rather desert than be forced to be put in a position where I am a murderer. But that's just me I suppose...

When you plant land mines in the driveways of farms you are a terrorist. Full stop, case closed. Nelson Mandela and his group were terrorists. So was Menachen Begin. A succesful terrorist does not cease to be a terrorist even if they do worthy things later in life. Would you be a terrorist if you planted mines in an Al Queda farm?

OK, then it would only make sense to execute American soldiers who torture or murder civilians, right? And wasn't the Taliban the ruling party in Afghanistan? Why would Taliban fighters not be considered POWs? And was there people blowing shit up in Iraq before America got there? America - the place where they are never wrong, never held responsible and march to the beat of their own drum. Must be nice...I'd like to see any other nation on this planet get away with the amount of atrocities as America.

That's the price you pay for being the world's empire...nobody outside the empire wants to see your flag...i think it just comes with th territory...Like it or not, America has a rep of being arrogant and self centered. Sort of like the French have a rep for sitting on the fence, the Japanese have a rep for being overly polite...and so on...

Could part of the problem in Welland be that the population hasn't grown significantly in like 20 years? Ever since the canal closed the town has been quite dreary (except for the odd visit to Babies...I used to live there too). I am just trying to figure out if the 30% capacity is a result of the town lack of growth.

Oh that's rich...I mean really - trying to equate lying about oral sex while under oath with being responsible for the deaths of 25oo American soldiers (as well as tens of thousands of Iraqis)...it is no wonder people see the right as evil heartless pricks. I think a blow job would be good for Bush - maybe he'll learn to relax a little. And the war on terror is another can of worms altogether - declaring war on a word leaves the definition of terrorism up in the air, to be defined by Bush whenever he sees fit. And don't forget, the administration had promoted the bullshit connection between iraq and 911 through PR companies and windbag radio shows. They didn't refute the connection until it had been ingrained in half of the population. Like I said, evil geniuses (but I still can't believe you tried to equate the two....priceless!!!)

However, if you sign up in the army believing that whenever you will be called to duty it will be in the interests of freedom, but then find out that the whole thing was a sham from the start, one might have no choice but to follow their morals rather than some military loyalties. Some deserters had spent time in Iraq and said they were killing civilians all the time as they were not trained to distinguish between insurgent and civilian. The Republicans are geniuses - ever able to defend their horrific actions and policies by deflecting and twisting facts on the ground and domestically. It's amazing - a president can go through impeachment hearing for lying about oral sex while another president who starts a bloodbath and misleads his own nation can get elected a second time. But back to deserters, i think it is more courageous to follow your moral compas than to follow someone else's immoral bloodbath.

I believe officially it it Pickering to Etobicoke (east to west) and north to Markham.

Harper can preach about ethics all he wants, but when push comes to shove he is as partisan and works the system as well as the Liberals. Just ask Emmerson...

iamcanadian - Equating the French school system to apartheid is a clumsy way to prove a point - not to mention completely unrealistic. There is a Catholic School Board in Canada with their own funding as well - they even call it the Separate School Board - where is your contempt for that? You sound like an alarmist. I think you arte taking the subject over the top a tad...don't you?

...also, just to be as specific as possible, I did skim to a few pages back to read to topics just to make sure there were no Chavez threads. So in all fairness, I either went blind or did not see a Chavez related thread. Furthermore, I did not respond to any Chavez threads. What is it you are trying to say?

OK, seriously...I do not bother with threads older than a day....for some reason, and you can chalk it up to wanting to stay current, i just like to hit "refresh" every once in a while then see if I want to post. Honestly, I can understand your suspicion, even while not knowing if there is in fact a similiar thread or comment made previous to my post, but I am new, not a troll, and not for the life of me knowing what it is you are referrig to. Read my earlier posts and you might find that I am jabby on occasion but always try to balance the tides. Whatever it is you think I am doing you are mistaken.

I haven't enjoyed a palyoff like this sice 1989....and I'm a Habs fan!!!