SirRiff

read that again slowly....

this has got to be the most blind ranting of all... what exactly do you think the relationship between saudi arabia and the US is??? why are the unelected dictators of saudi arabia greeted in the US and called the "royal family" while other nations are called dictators?? why havnt you heard ANY US president call for immediate elections in saudi arabia? AMERICA IS BRIBED EVERY DAY BY SAUDI AND KUWAITI OIL just look at the doubled standard applied. democracy everywhere except for oil rich nations led by corrupt billionaires who keep selling oil to teh US. the US has dealth with iraq and iran for 50 years, never blinking an eye as thier violence. this idea that saddam had ties with many nations is underwhelming. the US is worse then any nation when supporting dictators and even a picture of chirac and saddam in a bathtub washing each others backs wouldnt absolve the US of all the blood on their hands. first get all the ugly history of the US out in the open, then i would be more then happy to start trashing the secondary countries.

its boggles the mind to have the US goverment rant about WMDs for months citing them as why WAR was NEEDED right now, and not hold them responsible for the lie. bush and his admin cited a very serious issues that concerns the whole world. they obviously misled the world as they wanted to go to war really really bad. the world needs to hold them responsible for thier lies. they can blame the intelligence all they want, but they certainly get it right when it benefits them. if they cited humanitarian issues as a reason the world needed to go in, THEN you can cut them some slack on exact details. but when you repeatidly cite specific claims about massive WMD stockpiles that turn out to be lies, there is no slack. the world is not stupid enough to believe this is an honest mistake. sirriff

the overall sexualization of children by tv/movie mass marketing has chipped away at what we consider too young to be sexual. whats worse however, is the illusion of consent created by this. young girls wearing heels and makeup and exposed to the advances of older men predictibly feel empowered and the focus of attention. however we cannot mistake this for informed consent, as no matter what a preteen loooks like or dresses like or is exposed to, they will never be able to give informed consent to sexuality like an adult. teens are a bit of a grey area. if who high school kids have sex at the age of 16, do we lock them up? what if the boy is 18? is it mutually exploitive if both are 16? also if you look at society, a 16 yr old is a very independant person in 2004. both mother and father may work, leaving the teen alone much of the time. many young girls come home and do homework, cook some food for themselves, drive, do after school activities and so on. so its unreasonable to consider then completely dependant on the presence of adults. but one thing is certain, there is an epidemic of child exploitation exploding around the world, and any civilized society need to treat child sex abuse like murder of the soul and rape on innocence. i have no sympathy of child rapists. i would kill them without hesitation if it can be proven what they did. i look at it like this, Canada has a finite amount of resources to take care of its citizens. we can either spend them on predators who have made their choice and had thier chance at life, or children who have all the potential at life and deserve a fair chance. i vote for nothing for violent criminals. THIS ARTICLE at nytimes.com (freee membership required) documenting the child sex trade is the most disturbing thing i have ever read. i read all 10 pages and i really regret it now. its disturbing in every way. but i guess its stuff every civilized person needs to know.

speaking of "insipid allegations" Rasputin, where exactly did i say the US war was based on a desire to control opium production?

KrustyKidd, its pretty stupid to assume that i havnt been to the US just because i point out they have high murder rates (to which i am comparing them to other 1st world nations) NOT the slums of mexico- i find it very odd that you would compare such obvious different situations. as if having a lower murder rate in chicago then the wost ghetto in africa is something to be proud about. when we discuss these national stats we compare accross economically similar nations, Canada, US, Britian, Japan, etc.) its not like we live in iran or something, a canadian living in ontario is pretty likely to spend time and having family in the US as i do. i grew up travelling about the US, so i think it shows you are functioning out of reality to think that any canadian doesnt know what america is like. but no matter how many american cities i see, still doesnt change the behavior of america as a whole. which is the only thing anybody has discussed here. if you want to start a thread about whether individual american towns are full of normal people, go head, but we are talking nations here. its always sad to see people find comfort in teh fact that everyone else who disagrees must not live in teh "Real world" like them, and must not have travelled the world. its tells far more about how you view others then anything. just to clarify, its doubtfull you have any better experiences to judge the world then me, or anybody else. whoever told you that you do, was lying. and just to point out, even a small town farmer in alberta can make intelligent judgements on what it right and wrong and his opinions. i have never been to afganistan, but its not hard to come to conclusions about the taliban. sirriff

if the US is such a respectfull nation, why did they secretly funnel $3 Billion worth of violence to afganistan in the 80s? that is exactly the actions of a rouge nation. why did the US support saddam while he wa gassing iranians and brutalizing his own country? american companies even sold him chemical precursors for his weapons program. that was during the cheney/rumy days way back in the day. why did the US secretly give weapons to iran to kill iraqis? why did the US secretly assist in the sept 11,1973 bloody coup in chile? thousands disappeared while the US said nothing, the US has supported dozens of the worth dictators over the last 20 years, in latin america and the middle east. there is no "royal" family in suadi arabia or kuwait. just tyrants who the US supports and protects at all costs to keep the oil coming. the US is a bitch to stable oil flow and everything it does centers around that. there is no morality or concern about human suffering when american interests are at stake. that point has been demonstrated dozens of times in the last 50 years. if you want to claim teh US is just another country, fine. but lets not pretend its anythign but what it is, certainly not selfless and benevolent. if Bush had kept the troops in afganistan, and poured billions in there to help the people, THAT would be an act of kindness (and also international security, seeing as 9/11 only happened because afganistan was left in violence for 20 years). THen america with an act of kindness under its belt, could go to teh UN and make a humanitarian/regional stabillity argument for saddams refusal. none of this saddam-osama-9/11-WMd crap which was obviously hyped war mongering.

so the US is AHEAD of us by 10+ years yet americans kill each other more then any other nation? racial inequalities STILL linger? health care collapsing and perscription drugs still overprice? man if that is what happens 10 years in the future i am happy where we are. we are socially 1 generation ahead of the US. anyways, the US will just be little mexcio in 20 years. sirriff

well fastned, just looking at the nations as an average person would tell you there is no "significent" difference. our average life span has always been near identical, which is very telling considering that would take into account all sorts of cancers and emergency care situations. our productivity while behind the US, is impressive if you consider the higher density and higher population/industrial base of the US. in my opinion there is no reason to believe we are not at least equal, if not a slight bit healthier (violence/obesity) overall. I think people miss the big picture about health care. its not just about the individual. the quality of health care must be measured on a national scale, because poor health of a subsection of people affects the nation. take human capital for instance. when a qualified trained machinist gets sick and doesnt have health care, its not just him that suffers. the job that he cannot do, and the skills that he cannot contribute to producing goods and services is also lost. he could be working and earning wages, paying taxes, and balencing out the supply and demand of his product, thus incresing the satisfaction of both the seller and buyer, as each side gains from the exchange. so in truth, it benefits me to have some of my taxes go to medical services for other canadians. they will continue to work and make more goods nad services. this will give me more opportunities at lower cost. additionally, the social cost of having people who are needlessly less productive out of sickness manifests in increased crime, divorce, and substance abuse. as fastneds example points out, imagine a machinist who provides for his family who gets too sick to work, looses his job and pay. the entire family suffers because of it, and the future cost of divorce of poor kids is spread out over the rest of society. in terms of total benefit and total cost, Canada is FAR ahead of the US. in terms of actual $money$, per capita average is higher in the US. i read a university of Toronto professor who calculated there were 600,000 jobs in teh private US health care system that were redundent because of competing companies. however, this competition lead to no observable benefits. thus 600,000 people were needless employed processsing insurance information while they could have been dong more productive jobs under a single health care structure. to use an economics term, health care is a natural monopoly. it can be done better by 1 large organization then by several smaller ones. inefficiency does exist, but the numberour other benefits outweight the loss of efficiency.

i dont know where the # came from, but i know every night on CNNS lou dobbs money line he cites "over 2 million jobs lost". and he is pretty in teh know and a conservative too boot.

anyone who has worked in a biology lab knows that simple bacteria are easy to cultivate by any high school student. to say that a nation in 2003 is preparing for war by having university level bacterial strains is insane. by that logic almost all nations have massive stockpiles. because the US was completely wrong about WMD stockpiles, its obvious their views on saddams intentions or future actions are worthless. they have already proved they lie to the world to attain thier goals. a few old white men with bush have been the ones striking fear into ameircans by citing intelligence showing these massive stockpiles. thus its obvious nothing left is sacred to the american gov, even lying to its own peole about national securiety issues. anybody to believes what they say about iraq anymore is lacking adult cognitive skills. there is no proof of anything they have ever said being true. in truth, the war was about 9/11 fear, slumping domestic economy, influence of oil stabililty, and neo-con strategic military philosophy. nothing more, nothing less. WMD and human rights are not even on the radar screen. its obvious the US has become a rouge nation with no problem lying to teh world and its own people. thus it cannot be trusted by anyone on anything. colin powell yesterday said its possible no WMDs ever existed and he doesnt know how this would have goten past US intelligence. this is the guy who made the presentation to the US citing rock hard evidence. its all disgusting, bush and his war mongers should be drug into the street and shot like the other violent leaders of the last 50 years. they point out the violent dictators of other nations yet do the very same thing under teh guise of self defence. lies, all lies.

uh, in the last two days; david kay has said he doesnt think wmd exists in iraq. he says in his opinion stockpiles will never be found and they have not existed post 1991 colin powell said its possible they never existed at all based on recent seachs, and he doesnt know why US intelligence wouldnt know this. both are well documented on the major news sources. so who needs to grow up? the US LIED to the world over a very serious issue. not only will this destroy the credibility of the US on worthwhite future ploblems, it will hamper any international efforts on WMD and humanitarian issues. not only that, but other nations now have an example of warmongering under a guise of preventative self defence. russia and chechnya, china and taiwan. the US is going to have a hard time lecturing people after this iraq lie. china can just say they have evidence of radical US funded elements in taiwan, but of course, it doesnt need proof that stands up to scrutiny. the US lies about WMD in iraq, which were clearly a front for 1) post 9/11 fear therapy, 2) influence of the oil region, and 3) implimentation of neo-con strategic pax-americana military philosophy, are the most disgusting example of war mongering seen since vietnam. all UN nations should get together and put economic sanctions on teh US. let americans suffer by the international community for a change instead of taking advantage of it. the US is a rough nation which has lied about the most important of principles of the international community. they cannot be trusted as such, and Canada has been proven 100% right as we can see the lies about WMD falling apart. we would be war criminals if we were occupying iraq under false pretense right now. sirriff

i see, so your values dont see teh dead canadians every year? the crimes commited with guns? the caution that police have to take when dealing with armed criminals. there are no values here, just everyday reality. look at the US, the resources america puts into just maintaing thier current gun crimes is massive. benefits of guns? hunting? self defence? i support hunting in principle, but hunters registering and paying fees is nothing in terms of the benefit to society at large. a little iinconvienence for them is nothing in terms of overall canadian societys quality of life improvement. US NRA always cites "self defense" in terms of gun ownership. which is a fair argument, but i question the ratio of needless violence compared to the rare instance of a 45 yr old accountant blowing away some intruder and saving his family. just doesnt happen. not to mention the huge increase in risk of just having a gun around, as some kid, or some wacko, or some argument will get someone shot if not killed. overall its a no brainer to see that all the resources wasted on protecting society from gun violence FAR outweights any arguable benefit they bring to individuals. thus society as a whole would beenfit from reducing the ricks from guns further. sirriff

excellant point udawg. look at germany and japan, who were taught to be recivilized by the very same US. japan now has apacifist constitution. germany has a very strong reaction to racism and religious intolerance. perfect examples of adapting and learning from national mistakes. unlike the US, which after helping to destroy afganistan, and trading weapons with iran and iraq, STILL cant even collectively accept it. hell americans dont even know about it. yes, obviously it is. case in point- a bomb in japan. to stop that kind of insane aggression, the US was justified in punishing the entire japanese nation. unfortunate, but justified. the same would have been true with germany. but this whole iraq thing is not even close to that. it was mass hysteria in an oil rich nation. everyone knows the US is completely dependant on an international stable oil market. without it american prosperity is halved overnight. IF iraq was a potential threat to the US, then you must decide whether its an immediate threat, or a possible threat. just like when police officers pull up to a crime. if someone is waiving a gun around, they can threaten deadly force. is someone is just ranting and raving, they cant shot him. iraq was NEVER an immediate threat to the US, or anybody else in 2003. not even close. thus there is no reason to kill thousands of innocents and destabolize the world at that time. there was an internationally accepted method of sanctions and inspections and containment that had been going on for 12 years. now you have to look at reasons why the US would lie and benefit from a quick invasion. 1) to sooth the fears of americans after 9/11, bush and his admin could gain alot of popularity as being strong 2) to use the war on terror sympathy of the world to try to include iraq, an unrelated yet hated former enemy- 3) to seize an opportunity to intimidate the region by projecting american power in the oil center of the world 4) to distract voters from economic domestic issues and to implement a conservative policy push under the guise of war when you look at these reasons, and compare them to the numerous illegal secrat wars in latin ameirica, support for numberous dictators, weapons sales to afganistan, iran, and iraq, you see these kind of considerations are EXACTLY what all these previos immoral and violent action where based on. skewed US ambitions at the expense of innocents far away who are never heard or seen suffering. its the same story, time, after time, after time, after time. just look at teh declassified CIA documents from 1953, where they clearly spell out oil interests in the joint UK-US coup in iran. its the blueprint for 50 years of violent secret wars. so when we talk about reasons and motives, any realistic viewof the sitution shows the stated reasons are just fancy talk, the real reasons have always been power, there are 50 years of examples since WWII. the lack of WMDS shows that there was NO immediate threat from iraq. and the hype and rush to war fits right into the reasons i gave which would benefit the US to go in under false pretense.

city problem??? what the hell you mean nobody from outside a city has even been hurt by a gun? where do you think the main population of canada is? the CITIES thus its a national quality of life problem. a gun in teh country can kill anybody accross canada if some wacko decides to use it. because the harm of guns FAR out weight the good of guns, its VERY appropriate to make it difficult to have a gun. just like alcohol, or tobacco, or drugs. they take far more from society then they give. that justifies a strict response

i think it was my comment below which lead to all this useless stats being posted. but nobody really focuses on teh implications. the fact is that the US is more violent then any other 1st world nation. that is the important reality. the fact is that even when the US spends more (total private and public) on health care, there are still tens of millions uninsured- even those who work full time, and there is no evidence that the insured are healthier then Canadians. Thus the system is defective. else the market system would produce the right amount of health care, adn by spending more on it, americans should be a bit healthier. so in the ned of the day, the problems remain. 1) excessive amounts of violence 2) deficient amounts of health care the manifestation on these problems is the only important thing. as a citizen who was victim of a crime, or who cant afford to get sick without ruining my life, which country pays what makes no difference. a university of TO author put it best when he said "when given a choice between liberty and efficiency, Americans choose liberty every time" i think its a perfect encapsulation of the differences between us and the US.

i am still trying to figure out exactly what you guys are claiming... that 2million NET jobs have been created? that there hasnt been a 2 million job loss that 2 million gross jobs have been created in one area and 4 million lost in another... every single time i have heard job stats quoted on any news program for the last 2 years, it has been something of the order of "2 million jobs lost" (it may it "3" sometimes). never in all my news junky days have i EVER heard ANYBODY mention 2 million job creation. never. so instead of claiming that one goverment method is far superior then another, what exactly is being claimed? i cant accept by any rational means that 2 million net jobs have been created in a US recession. doesnt float. anyways, even i dont blame bushs stupidy for job loss. most of it was inevitable and no president actually controls the reality of national economics.

i am as pro-multicultural and immigrant as you can get, my own parents came to canada in the early 70s and made thier life. but even i demand that people FIRST syncronize with the national culture and language so as to at least be able to funtion as part of the larger society. after that, if they want to maintain thier own culture, i say let them. but, by forced exposure to the domestic culture first, i think it would be the best of both worlds, moderate yet diverse. nothing wrong with a country expecting people to immerse themselves in local culture as part of the deal of a new life. intra-national culture is very important.

i think bush is one step up from green algea on the intelligence scale, but the weeks of preperation and practice paid off. it was his most reasonable speech to date. but then again, most people i know could speak like that given all the training his guy has had in 3 years. its just propaganda anyways, the reality is day to day life.

if a mentally fit person cannot figure out that gun control is good, they are living in la la land. no matter how inefficient things are in goverment, no matter how inconvienent it is for some farmer in alberta, the policy and long term results will be an improvement over doing nothing. hell, if you can prove nobody will get shot in canada this year, we can do nothing. if people keep getting shot needlessly, we obviously still have work to do. police are the experts on this stuff, if they said scrap it i would support it, if they say keep it, its obvious to keep it.

well thats a convienent timetable, if france and germany do it when its bad for the US, thats bad, but when the US has been doing it for 50 years, thats nothing of concern? the ONLY reason 9/11 happened in teh first place is that Russia and the US played thier politics with the blood of a million afgans. then they both left. the land was left to be maimed and raped by 20 years of war, and soon it festered with violence that even reached accross the atlantic and ended with 9/11. when you look at the USs involvement in latin america for the last 50 years, its dealings with iran, iraq, and afganistan, you see they are the WORST of all when it comes to supporting dictators and killing by proxy. the fact that they have yet to even admit thier past wrongs, education thier public about thier secret wars, and therefor show that they have collectively come to accept thier past immorality, means they still cannot be trusted to do the right thing, even if they rant and rave about "freedom".

martin is somehow at fault? he was not even welcome in the PMs office during the time. serously, that kind of thinking is just desperate. there is only one problem here, we have no official canadian policy as to how we are going to interact with the US when they go on crazy terrorist witchhunts. especially when its one of our citizens are the entire "evidence" is just some vauge whim. even syria let him go after they found nothing of substance against him. canada needs to either concede that the threat to the US by terrorists trumps alot of our sovereign pride and we will have to give up power, or that in spite of the perceived threat we as a nation need to maintain our dignity especially when its the health and well being of canadians at stake. i vote for the latter. dont give up our guys to the US, but at the same time put some real muscle in our response to terrorism and border security. then at least we can handle these cases ourselves, and the US can trust us not to be soft with dangerous men.

craig lets not get hysterical about this. if there is this giant conspiracy by the "Media" which i guess you mean to be all non conservative TV, newspaper, and radio across america, why wouldnt bush use his massive power as president to go onto a national conservative media outlet and do the math as you propse. this would give everyone these magical numbers that you, as a mathamathical wizard, have caluculated. so basically, to accept your point, the president would have to be incapable of public the very same simple numbers that you yourself have produced. i find that hard to believe. after all, he certainly had enough of a platform to give WMDs as a reason for war. so it seems the premise needed to support your assertion is unlikely and unreasonable. the repubs DO in fact have the power to say whatever they want, and there is no media wall. informational perceptions are different then information accessability.

if the US is so damn fanstastic, why do they kill each other at rates much higher then any other nation, and why cant they get health care to thier citizens? i would be more impressed if the following werent true; the poor get screwed really bad in the US, which causes all sorts ofsocial problems are unnecessary human suffering http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml...17&section=news private savings is nice, but the US gives up alot to achieve its miltary and wealth success. this concepts are meaningless if you are stuggling just to be safe and healthy. there is alot of misery in the US too which you dont see everyday on TV. just a matter of allocation of funds and how you distribute it. i choose the canadian model, its done very well for canada. our quality of life is very high and that is what is important to most canadians