Moonlight Graham

Yup, RIP George. My long fav fact pointed out again in your article is that George & partners bought the Yanks for only 10 million bucks back in 1973. Talk about a great investment!! I bet if the recession ended today the Yanks could be sold for darn near a billion.

Very cool video of all confirmed (according to the artist's source) nuke explosions from 1945-1998. Interesting are all the purple dots (Britain tests) that were done in the south-west U.S., which i never knew happened. http://www.geekosystem.com/every-nuclear-explosion-time-lapse/

Like any Canadian on these boards, it's glanced my mind a few times what it would be like to run for political office (especially at the federal level). But these dreams are quickly forgotten when i remember the kind of political system we have, and how individual MP's must check much of their independence and regard for their constituents at the door when elected and must tow the party line, are not allowed to speak publicly against their party's policies and often must "pretend" (aka lie) to the press in support their leader's/party's policies (whether they agree or not), and the great majority of the time must vote with their party despite what an MP or his/her constituents think on matters. This is no secret about the way the Canadian political system functions. I would imagine this strict party discipline frustrates many potential political candidates (many much more qualified than myself lol), and i sometimes wonder how much our system turns off some of the best and brightest minds of our country from pursuing public office. The pathetic group currently occupying the House of Commons (in all parties) makes me feel that this country must have much better leaders employed in other fields (yes i realize most of them are happy in the private sector making lots more $$$). So do you think our system that encourages strict party discipline keeps many great minds out of politics in Canada? Also, if you ran or were elected as an MP, do you think it would it frustrate you?

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 70% Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 30% Liberal: Pretty much bang-on i guess.

I went to Wal-Mart about a month ago and bought a DVD player. They pointed out to me that they had to charge an extra 2-3 bucks or so for an "environmental disposal" fee or some crap they told me. I had no idea if this was a Wal-Mart thing or a gov't thing. Now i'm hearing stories about this eco-tax crap, which is likely what it was for.

What about natives?

No, i think it can proven through science that they don't exist. We have explored virtually the entire earth, and never found leprechauns or any evidence they may exist. With God, we have yet to explore the edges of the universe or beyond our universe. Something may have created this universe, whether it be a God or some other powerful being in a labcoat. We do not have the technological means to prove or disprove it.

Probably the biggest thing for me against the CPC & Harper has been the ramp up in Afghanistan and their overall policy there. With the Liberals (Iggy and also Rae i believe) saying they wish to have troops stay in the area after 2011 to train Afghan forces, i'm now less keen on the Liberals. Way to differentiate yourselves Libs.

Check again in 20 years.

Interesting info, thanks. From what it sounds the area you were in was pretty crazy. We don't really hear much of the day-to-day goings-on of whats going on over there, as it really isn't "news" until there is a big offensive, a bombing, or a soldier dies etc. I think any informed person on the war over there knows we aren't winning. Seems like we've been treading water for the majority of the time we've been there, and politically the situation there seems to be deteriorating. Canada's longest war hurray!

You're an American?

Looks like we have a new addition to the "nut club" on this board. Lictor would be proud. It seems like anti-theocracy is your God. You will kill and start vast wars in your fanaticism.

a happy 4th to all my American friends!

Totally disagree with the OP. This is an isolated event. No need to go bonkers & bring in more firearms etc. If you want to protect your property from thugs, grab an aluminum baseball bat or a wrench, or just call the cops. If you want to go extreme, Canada does allow firearms in this country.

When a govt like Cheney/Rummy and bros. institute things like waterboarding and deny it is torture, that is expected because they know full fell its torture but they do not want to publicly acknowledge it & suffer the political scorn (domestic or internationally). I get that, that's the game. But what really gets my gourd are these idiots in the public (and in MSM) that chime the same gov't dribble and actually believe themselves that waterboarding isn't torture. Weak-minded fools believing their own gov't spin. Torture in the context of fighting terrorism is a tricky subject. The terrorists aren't a state, they dont really apply to the Geneva Conventions (unless im mistaken?). So how do you fight the enemy that doesn't play by the established international rules of war? Keep your principles, or adapt your gameplan? This is what Michael Ignatieff discussed in his book "The Lesser Evil", ie: the ethics of fighting terrorism. Maybe torturing a dude to save 30 men from being blown up is "the lesser evil"? Very difficult ethical dilemma. Interesting that Obama has completely backtracked on the whole "closing Gitmo" issue. The question is why? Has he found out something once he took office that Cheney & co. knew and has changed his mind? Or is it more political pressure, ie: people not wanting terrorist prisons on mainland U.S. soil?

So you think Islam is "evil"? Before you make such a bold judgment i hope you're a darn educated about Islam, and you know you're Wahhabism from your Salafism.

Absolutely not. Both the 18th and 19th centuries were riddled with war. I will edit my statement by saying that "world wars", aka large-scale wars involving the majority of the great powers, occurred alarmingly frequent from post-1648 until the establishment of collective security by the great powers in the Treaty of Vienna of 1815. 3 major "world wars" occurred in the 18th century: War of the Spanish Succession, War of the Austrian Succession, and the Seven Years' War. Add to that the 6 separate "Wars of the Coalitions" that occurred during then French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars from 1792-1815. How many "world wars" occurred in the 100 years between 1815-1914? History says almost undeniably zero. How many even involved more than 2 or 3 great powers? This is what i meant by "relatively peaceful" from 1815-1914. Similarly, when the collective security system broke down between 1914-1945 we saw more world war. However, i will totally agree that nuclear weapons and the bipolarity of the Cold War have been the primary reasons for the lack of a world war since 1945. However, collective security has also played a major role. Collective security between great powers is based on the concept that that an attack on 1 great power constitutes an attack on them all. France would not attack Britain now because it knows that if it did, the rest of the great powers would act to defend Britain in order to re-establish global peace/security/stability. Yes of course nukes play into this in a major way as well. I suppose this is a matter of opinion and a can of worms we won't bother opening lol. Pretty much. But this is essentially the UNSC though. I'm not saying the UNSC is perfect, in fact could do for reform as many others have argued. Collective security has worked for the 5 powers who have the veto. And i agree that the UN has failed in many respects to uphold its basic principles as outlined in the UN Charter. However, it is important to note that Westphalian system of the international sovereignty states still remains and is the reason for some of the UN's failures. Humanitarian intervention, such as was needed in Rwanda and Sudan, breaks this rule of sovereignty ie: what happens inside a country is its own business and no other state has the right to interfere. You yourself are a proponent of this from previous statements, so it is hard for you to complain about Rwanda/Darfur etc. I think the whole problem with the UN Charter is that its overly idealistic. You can't have the sovereign equality of all states and also enforce "basic human rights" for people inside all states at the same time. That's the whole dichotomy of the UN, and its impossible to uphold the Charter without changing the whole rules of the game or having a world gov't. I've never said the UN was perfect. I'm not its #1 fan. It needs major reform. The failures to address what has happened in Africa the last 20 years is proof. Many of the continued polices of the IMF and World Bank have been damaging to developing countries. But i would rather have it than not have it.

Happy Canada day!!! WOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! (no im not drunk)

Thanks for posting Jack, watched the 1st part i hope to finish the rest. Pretty informative, great film footage of Hitler. Looked it up, film was made in 1960.

Honestly i don't know a lot about the Kosovo conflict. Since it's a recent conflict that involved my country it seems i should read up on it. You're probably right, i don't remember them ever doing such. Did the General Assembly ever do any kind of vote on it?

Because it is seen as a legitimate action by the international community, and the great powers of the world specifically represented by the UNSC. Hence the concept of "collective security". The Concert of Europe established in 1814 after the Napoleonic Wars led to 100 years of relative international peace up until WWI compared to the 150 years previous to 1814 starting from the beginning of the modern international system established in 1648, where there was seemingly constant war between states from 1648-1814. Wars between great power states have also been relatively uncommon since the end of WWII and the establishment of the UN compared to the years between 1648-1814 or the 1st half of the 20th Century. The UN has a decent record at avoiding support for stupid interstate wars ie: Vietnam and 2003 Iraq, Iraq attacks against Iran and Kuwait etc.. If you can find a better system than collective security/concert of power to avoid international war i'm all ears.

Err what if you didn't vote for the man? Ever?

These may not even be related to this thread, but i just read that "French President President Nicolas Sarkozy's approval ratings have reached a new low of 26 per cent" in a new poll. Holy cow even more unpopular than Bush Jr.! http://www.metronews.ca/edmonton/world/article/568023--poll-sarkozy-s-approval-hits-new-low

I've heard the argument before. IMO, getting by on a technicality doesn't cut it. Maybe it even was "legal" to invade, that's still doesn't make it legitimate, nor does it represent the will of the UN. It was over a decade since the 1st Gulf War resolutions were passed, any kind of reasonable sense says after that much time the 2003 invasion needed another resolution. There was a reason that the US wanted to get a clear resolution passed in 2003. To clearly legitimize and legalize the invasion. If your friend stabs someone in the leg with a knife and you completely disagree with his actions, you're still going to give him the gauze you have and help him clean up the wound instead of letting the person bleed to death.

Well, nuclear deterrents and the bipolarity of the Cold War was most prominent reason in there being no WWIII. However, its impossible to know how the world order would be without the UN.