SirRiff

i agree this video is damn graphic...very scary actually...war is hell half of me says, if these guys were going to kill a whole bunch of people, they deserve to die, no trial, no jail, just blow them up. we waste too many resources on people who dont deserve to live anyways (rapists/chlld molesters) the other half of me says as a western democratic nation, the US especially must go beyond any reasonable concept of justice to be an example to all the middle of the road european nations. else who will be left to criticise russian in chechnya or india and pakistan. this kind of video leads me to believe vauge estimates of 30,000 to 75,000 iraqis killed to date in this conflict. with this kind of firepower and similar attacks that occuring during the war, there are likely thousands of low level iraqi army guys who were killed rather pointlessly. '

http://www.warblogging.com/iraq-apache.mpeg http://www.thecia.net/users/stewarte/apachehit.mpg both these links are working as i post this... the video shows no weapons in the mens hands 1 was obviously wounded when fired on they posed no visible danger at the time they were attacked does this violate the rules of engagement of an occupying not to engagne unless in harms way? looks like 3 execuations on tape maybe there is more to the story, but its hard to see much to justify this as "combat"

i like the creative thinking... without just blankly saying yes or no, let me just float an idea.. i believe that whatever flaws the current UN has is NOT a result of its fundamental design, but of the basic principles of human/cultural/national behavior. thus i think like the prisoners dilemma, whatever the starting rules may be, the overwhelming cimcumstances (poverty, culterual divide, geo-politics) will force the outcome to resemble the current situtation again and again. take for instance the 1 nation 1 vote rule. why would rich nations EVER agree to lesson their power? it just goes against the laws of human nation. a noble, yet unrealistic goal i think. secondly, since some nations could free ride off the military actions of others (by abstaining) there is no incentive to put forth resources for the "greater good". the alternative is to require each nation to be able to reasonably contribute in some sense, however since most of the world is poor, this just punishes the poor nations for being poor, creating the resentment and alliances we see today. i just see the same outcome regardless of the initial setup, but the outcomes of the current system reflect the realities of the world, not some fundamental defect of planning. so in the end, any "new" UN could not end up operating any better then the current UN, and most likely identical results will follow. but interesting thoughts anyway

everyone bitches about the state of our military, fine, i dont like it either, but you rarely hear the simple straitforward alternatives. 1) spend WAY more money to maintain a 1st world military 2) cut WAY back on out international peace keeping missions. what makes you think canadians are willing or able to do either. you are talking about making a fundamental reallocation of funds towards military spending, or a fundamental reallocation of canadian foreign policy via peacekeeping. i dont see either as happening if canadians are given a choice.

Dishonest - 1) as in the numerous times the Bush admin linked 9-11 to iraq, creating a default level of belief in americans [comfirmed by several independant polls] that the current state of iraq actually caused or was related to the events of 9-11 in some way. 2) Also as in the repeated assertions that the US gov has detailed information on the state, quanitity and location of WMDs in iraq, something that has turned out to be painfully untrue as the WMD teams have gone through every possible lead and turned up with nothing, resulting in the continual disbanding of the WMD search and a dissolution of the entire WMD discussion in public. Mischevious - the entire sending weapons to the war torn nation of afganistan in secret, contrary any accepted conduct from civilized democratic nations not to participate in war-by-proxy which empowers foriegn imperial powers are the expense of poor local citizens. same thing in iraq against iran, same thing in iran against iraq. any nation that just arms random groups of peoples in poor volitile areas as a form of proxy policy is evil. the horrors and suffering are never seen by the world, the US doesnt have to get its hands dirty and be accountable for the death, the US uses and abandons peoples without consequence- which is why 9-11 happened in the first place, by the US and russia having its secret wars, the nation was left to rot in war and spread its violence to the world. Defective or unpredictable - calling saddam a dictator yet calling the saudi rulers the "royal" family. supporting these corrupt regimes in saudi arabia and kuwait to maintain cheap fuel supply while allowing these rules to amas huge fortunes that assure their power. using dictators over the years to do the bloodly work, like the sept 11, 1973 coup in chile which the US supported at teh expense of thousands of lives. the last 50 years has the US supporting almost every dictator on earth at some time or another. that is just off the top of my head. there are far more arguments that could be made i have read many many opinions from all different sources and have never seen this "proof" that you speak of, so i doubt you have it. else you should write a book and make millions cause you would be the first

i dont know who this "Left" is, but i assure you, i am not a member also, when you claim that i was implying saddam was "good" you demonstrate your unwillingness or inability to focus on the actual content of my point. it says more about how you choose to interact in discussion that anything else. claiming that someone supports saddam is an easy way to avoid the hard topics, but nobody here has ever said it, so its just a twisting of criticism against the US. it seems the "Right" tells its members at meetings not to bother to identify the content of opposing arguments when responding. off to my Left meetings..

oneil was a highly respected man in washington and was asked to join bush specifically because he could contribute at a high level .whatever the bush supporters say now, its obvious oneil is highly qualified and there is no use going after him pesonally. he just points out the obvious, iraq is a pre9-11 neo-con philosohpy of how the world should be. it has no basis in 9/11, or WMD, or human rights. bushed lied to the world to make some false justification to distract americans long enough to satisfy a few crazy middle aged white men who havnt even served in the military in the first place. doesnt matter how you rant, this is just another piece in the huge heap of evidence that the US gov is a rouge gov just like any other. controlled by a few crazies.

which is so different from bushs way of doing things....karl rove is actually his butler....

it would be stupid to consider having an "official policy" of regime stage equal to launching an invasion of a non-threatening soveriegn arab state. the US has lots of official policies. i'm sure not smuggling arms to terrorists/rebels was an official policy if you asked reagan way back in the 80s. i'm sure it was clintons official policy not to get bjs in the oval office. i'm sure its bushs official policy not to lie and lie and lie to hype up wars. the truth an official policy of wanting dictators out is meaningless. its whats you do about it. the official policy doesnt seem to apply to saudi arabia when the oil is cheap. the point is that the war was hyped to the entire world, it was just another example of a strong country pushing around weak ones, WMDs and human rights were never even on the radar screen, just smoke screens. if it was about terror links, the US itself is guilty of arming terrorists if it was about human rights, the US itself is guilty of supporting the world human rights abusers. anything else, adn the US must prove thier case before the world else be considered a rogue nation

well its news to get a first hand acccount that shows all this 9/11 and WMD justification was just lies. everyone knew it, but now the whole word can hear it right from a member of the US gov. the iraq war was just a neo-con view of the world with no basis in security or human rights. the world should see the evil of this even more when oneil tells the account first hand. this makes the US a pseudo terror state in a 3 piece suit

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/...ain592330.shtml from upcoming CBS news interview of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill if this doesnt prove this was a group of old rich white men with deslusions of imperialism, i dont know what would. nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with WMD, nothing to do with human rights. all Neo-con thinking to screw up the world. all the bush admin should be charged with war crimes right along side saddam. sirriff

the US is 10, Canada is 16, and this is somehow a failure? if the USA, the most prosperous nation in the history of history, is behind 1. Hong Kong, 2. Singapore, 3. New Zealand, 4. Luxembourg, 5. Ireland and 6. Estonia, then its pretty obvious that the problem isnt the constitution, or the tax system, or property rights, or whatever else lame reasons floating around. there is nothing 'wrong' with the US markets, because by the very definition of sucess, the US has suceeded beyond all others. so if the obvious best economic markets in the world is ranked 10, then being 16 does not infer any failure by canada. just to point out hong kong and singapore have grown like weeds in the 90s, and luxembourg/ireland/estonia are like apples compared to US/canada oranges. we are doing fine over here thanks. congrats to hong kong.

i really dont like martin, he is way too much of a slick CEO for my liking, however, there is no reason whatsoever to try to link some druggy in BC to martin. this is the kind of desperate irrational argument that are just a waste of oxygen. unless martin uses, sells, or buys drugs, nobody cares. there are plenty of reasons to not like him, this is just pathetic.

basically what you are implying, is that anything can be explained away by circumstance. aiding murderers and rapists is immoral, and nothing can ever change that. you notice that american news NEVER scratched the surface of the former US-afganistan and US-iraq relationships. nobody ever mentioned that the entire reason 9/11 happened is that the US and russia sowed the seeds of misery in afganistan then left for 20 years. did you even read the orignal post? the US was absolutly prepared to attack non-agressive arab states FOR OIL. my god man, how more clear can it be? why is the suadi royal family called a strong ally of america? they are among the most corrupt nation on earth, no democracy, no human rights, funding terror for 20 years. the fact that the US hasnt said a peep about saudi arabia in public, but has labeled as "evil" similar states like Iraq, Iran, and north Korea is because the US has a deal with suadi arabia- we wont call you out on being bastards, and you keep the oil flowing.

generally, a highly accomplished man will have the qualities that will allow them to succeed in many situations. i know i would want an intelligent accomplished man leading my country over a life long failure. call me crazy, but i want the successful, highly education, hard working man to make the most important decisions.

the price of oil is not jsut based on the current flow of oil, it is dependent on the stability of oil. like the declassified documents tell, the US gov started looking at a 6 month supply left and they knew the entire american economy would collapse if they ran out of oil. its basically the same thing now, a 40% reduction in oil flow does not mean a 40% decrease in productivity. the resulting instability would have profound effects in the entire american economy. people greatly underestimate the USs demand for resource stability from the middle east. that is why crazy fanatical suadi terrorists who are not elected and fund terrorists have been close "allies" for 50 years. nobody in thier right mind would send billions of $$ to those crazy backwards bastards if they had a choice. and the taliban suddenly became evil, and saddam suddenly became evil, and iran and north korea, but saudi arabia? nope, not evil, not at all. in fact, close allies. no talk about democracy or human rights. how interesting. if you look at the 1953 coup in iran if you look at the 1973 coup in chile if you look at US support for the pre taliban during the 80s if you look at US support of iraq during the 80s if you look at US selling weapons to iran during the 80s THEN you see the true colors of america. in true, america has a well oiled government machine which does whatever it takes to perpetuate itself. cheap oil is the blood of the american economy and there is no morality if they really wanted to get it. sirriff

the guy is a rhodes scholar and heart doctor. he has accomplished more in his life then most people ever dream. also he is more educated and intelligent then anybody on this board. anybody can claim they dont like his policies, but lets not pretend he isnt by far the smartest person on either side of the 2004 american election. because he is. and i rarely feel its right to call someone "smarter" then another, but in this case, its true. sirriff

Alliance Fanatic, where exactly is this happening? are christians being tatood with numbers on thier arms and forced to wear crosses in public? i am a normal member of canadian society and i have NEVER seen or heard of a chrstian not being allowed to say anything they want. you are confusing private rights with public rights. you have the right to say most anything you want to as a private citizen. i however, if i own a coffee shop, have the right NOT to let you use my property to say it. additionally, the government has a responsibility to assure equality of all its citizens in its actions, and thus public resources for libraries and such cannot be used to promote one religion over another, the best course of action is to completely seperate public resources from religious activities of any kind. in this way, the great freedoms we have here in canada be be excersized by private individuals of any religion, yet the independance of government can be maintained by not letting the dominant religious community abuse the power of public resources. that seems pretty reasonable to me. and in no way does it limit what a private person can do or say using private resources. go rent a hall and have a christmas party of goodwill and jesus loving. nobody is going to stop you. you are very right Neal.F., in islam Jesus is considered a true prophet of God (although not the "son" of God). in truth islam has respect for several religions of "the book". the philosophy of islam is among the most tolerant, unfortunatly the geo-political center of islam is now among the most corrupt and miseducated on earth. man that is quite the story, not everyone is as evil as i thought. i bet these sorts of things happen often yet nobody hears about them because everyone keeps screaming Woe is me!

i strongly support captial punishment for both practical and philosophical reasons. 1. There is a finite amout of resources in a nation like canada. we cannot give all our of our citizens the quality of life we would like to. thus in a very real sense, any resource spent on rapists and murderers is almost like stealing it from a new born baby. its something they are entitled to, yet will not receive because it has been diverted. the potential return to society is infinate for the baby- the child could very well become a life long productive member of society. the potential return to society for teh criminal is nill, they have already had their chance in society and have caused much grief in thier deviant conduct. thus it is impractical to continue to house dangerous and resource sucking people on one hand, and deny valuable resources to citizens who can contribute to society and help canada prosper. from a purely mechanical allocation of resources, it is illogical to waste such precious energy. 2. from a purely philosophical point of view, when you kidnap a little girl, rape her, suffocate her, cut her up into little pieces and throw her in the garbage, being punished by simply restricting movement cannot be sufficient. EVEN IF there was no known deterrent effect, that level of crime requires a certain level of justice, the highest level being taking the offenders life. there is no other substitute for crimes against the dignity of life. 3. where my parents were from, they would bring thieves to teh town square and cut their hands off in front of the whole town. that way, everyone knew what would happen to criminals. in a philosophical sense this is necessary, after all, it is the citizens taxes that run the justice systems, and it is your punishment that is being inflicted, being ignorant of the true punishment would be wrong as it protects the very society you occupy

i actually like some serious christmas presentations about historical lands and the people of the time because its just interesting to learn about the early days of civilization. as for getting all wound up about some people choosing to stay religion neutral, i would propose that if all the true christians who are so offended by this, were actually living thier lives to the level most religions say to, they wouldnt have the time or inclination to complain about this silly stuff. which leads me to believe most people who hang thier hat on religion so publicly have no credibility on the issue anyways. a true christian would be a great person who would strike awe into most of us. sirriff

so not letting the church influence government policy in a democracy is anthiest? go figure, i guess all the founders of America and Canada who were generally very religous can now be considered athiests. if you look at why western nations do so well, its because government is allowed to operate outside of the scope of backwards religous fanatics. religous organizations put forward very intolerant and outdated social policy, the type of which has been rejected outright by almost every human on earth. if people truly wanted old white men to force them to conform to old books ultra conservative religous parties would be elected in both canada and US consistently. obviously this isnt the case, and organized religion plays less and less a part in peoples lives these days by choice. in one more generation i dont think there will even be enough people putting forward religion as a means of social policy to make a strong national debate.

two points; righturnonred has it all wrong i believe. there is a MASSIVE gaping moral hole here. by this bizarre line of thinking, ANY crime dissolves in importance simply by getting away with it. the fact that the US violated every principle of humanity in AFGANISTAN, IRAN, AND IRAQ is not make less important because there is nobody around to prosecute them. if saddam is a terrorist for gassing kurds, then most definately several american presidents for secretly sending weapons to afganistan, iraq, and iran. there is no statute of limitations on terrorism. else osama could reduce his crime simply by hiding for 20 years. you cannot consider yourself a civilized person unless you possess the ability to empathize with other human beings. the fact that millions and millions of civilians suffered in afganistan is not diminished by the fact that it started 20 years ago. that would be like someone saying in 20 years that what osama did on 9/11 isnt as important because it happened so long ago. especially when america is lecturing the world on morality oflate. its even more disgusting that americans cannot even reconcile thier own violent inhumane actions of the past after seeing 9/11. KrustyKidd, while that may be nice to believe, the DECADES of complicity with dictators shows that that theroy is not based on history. tell us, do you really think american policy will allow saudi arabia and kuwait to become wild cards under democracy? or is it far better for them to remain under harsh regimes where the oil keeps flowing out to the US, and the ruling class all become billionaires in the process? it is far far better for america if oil producing nations stay under strong unelected governments who are far more interested in living in wealth by any means then becoming truly self determining. hell look at the 15 9/11 highjackers who came from suadi arabia. if that was Canada, or Mexico, or Cuba, they would have been invaded. but not in the years since 9/11 has any gov official actually pointed out suadi arabia is a terrorist state with an elite ruling class of dictators who have an implicity arragement to keep pumping oil to the west in exchnage for maintaining the system. i think just looking at what is before our eyes tells us that the system in place is good for america and the dictators too.

i definately think police officers should be given far more respect in Canada/US, for many many reasons. however, when you look at what young black men in urban poverty have lived through in the last 50 years, its perfectly understandable this violent subculture has emerged. now while N.W.A. came out to mostly blacks many years ago representing rage, it was marketed as a way to appeal to all young people, and this sort of violent, super sexed music is just another way for kids to "rebell" or be cool or whatever. botton line, its all about money now. hell some of these rappers are worth tens of millions now. so really, as someone else pointed out, this anti-establishment has been the hallmark of every decade since elvis. hip shaking was shocking and that is why kids liked it. then drugs in the 60s and 70s. then glam metal about partying and girls nad alcohol in the 80s. that whole grunge/i am not understood by my middle class parents in the 90s. to be shocking in recent years requires a massive amount of sex or violence. frankly i think its just as much a product of industry marketing cycles as anything else. sex and violence are forever more the true and tried medium of mass marketing.

actually its a well known fact that the US supplied the pre-taliban rebels/terrorists with billions in weapons and aid. the US also sold weapons to iraq to kill iranians, and to iran to kill iraqis during thier wars. its not hidden that the US has supported almost every dictator in the last 50 years at some time or another. the sept 11, 1973 coup in Chile is another example of illegal and violent US assisted secret wars. the list is long and bloody. hell saddam may just say, this court has never indicted the US for its numberous and well known crimes. thus it cannot be considered just since it does not prosecute all criminals equally.

trying to prevent gays from having normal familes has nothign to do with with wanting a better canada. its just conforming to some preconceived notion of religious or "traditional" thinking. nobody ever questions where this whole idea of gays being less functional then heteros came from, and whether its valid. if you really wanted a better canada, you would want people to live happy and safe lives in any form. the object should be to maximize happiness and contentment. by letting some gay guys in toronto get married, no quality of life is lost in alberta, there is no reason to disallow it. live and let live.