kuzadd

I know you asked buffy a question but if I may respond? American woman, Generally wether a soldier or not, this most certainly unacceptable behaviour. But for a soldier, who is alleged to be of a higher standard, or more moral, it leaves one wondering. Especially in light of the fact he is an occupier in another people's country. Should he not, in light of his responsibility , and what he represents (the US) be held to that higher standard? Recently I heard Chalmers Johnson interviewed, and he noted that many world citizens experiences with Americans come not from contact with American business people, etc, but for many, their experience comes from their dealings with the American military/soldiers, through America's numerous occupations, wars, military bases,etc., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson Is this really the experience people should have of the US through it's military men?

what an a**hole! sick way to get some jollies, maybe he can come back and mutilate some kittens for fun too. Or maybe he can be like that soldier, back from 2 tours in Iraq, drinking and drugs, who beat and raped a 3 month old baby. gotta get that frustration out somehow eh? puppies, kitten, Iraqi kids, rape and torture. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080220/ap_on_re_us/infant_raped JACKSON, Mich. - A former Army paratrooper who served two tours of duty in Iraq has been ordered tried on charges of raping and critically injuring a 3-month-old girl. Kirk Coleman is charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct and first-degree child abuse, charges that carry up to life in prison. Authorities say the then-27-year-old Coleman attacked the baby Sept. 14 in Jackson County's Blackman Township, about 65 miles west of Detroit. The girl sustained brain damage and 17 broken bones and is undergoing therapy. District Judge R. Darryl Mazur ruled Tuesday there's enough evidence to warrant a trial. Coleman allegedly told investigators he blacked out after drinking heavily and taking painkillers and awoke to find the injured baby in her crib, The Jackson Citizen Patriot reported. WILX-TV says he remains free on $100,000 bond. One news story indicated this was the mans own baby.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2008/0...900000-nam.html I recall posting that all time high as reported confirmation of the estimate http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2008/0...tch-list-a.html The FBI's terror watch list contains roughly 900,000 records, a bureau spokesman said Thursday, confirming an earlier estimate by the American Civil Liberties Union. so the amount was reported at 700,000 in Sept 07, growing by 20,000 names per months. maybe it's not quite 900,000 maybe it's 820,000, but 20,000 a month, wow! who are all these 'Terrorists'?

Oh I understand my own posts, when I ask questions and I place question marks at the end, that means.....I am asking questions. I never said I had information on the agreement, in fact you did seem to be the one providing all manner of information . I merely had a bunch of questions, which I asked, I queried, I punctuated with question marks. question mark ? A question mark is used at the end of a question. If a spectre was raised for you, that is your problem, not mine. Your interpretation is your own! I don't take everyone for morons, only some!

what the heck is that? Those were my questions wrt this agreement. You seemed to be the one with the 'answers'. Or should I call them speculations or assumptions. hell I just want to know, what the agreement entails.

wow, did I say that anywhere? "spectre of jack booted americans" I think not! I think you assumed, or interpreted that, all on your own. I started this thread with questions for both Canadians and Americans along with the posse comitatus issue and I noted some other Americans elsewhere were wondering about congressional approval??? no spectres of anything, legitimate questions. Did the Liberals raise the suspicion that there could be troops on the streets? I don't recall. Interesting?did they happen to mention American troops? Maybe they only got it half right then , or half-wrong?? Do you know anything about it coming up for parliamentary vote? On reading it seems it's a done deal! two weeks ago.

American Woman I think you weren't alone in that. Agreed I cannot understand it either. That is the point I am making to Wilber who seems to assume all manner of arrangements made , and others who assume it is only related to rescue, as opposed to numerous other scenarios that are possible. I also cannot understand the people not wanting to know the details surrounding the possible deployment of foreign troops on their nations soil. Perhaps they don't question, because they assume they already know?

wilber, what I was quoting, was the details of the deal cannot be released without the approval of both nations. The deal was signed. Read the article signed Feb 14th. The approval required by both countries is for release of the details of the already signed agreement. Therefore, without approval of both governments the media will not report the details of the agreement, as the details of the agreement cannot be released without the approval of both countries involved. therefore you can't possibly know, and I do not claim to know. I am not even assuming I know. I've left that to posters such as yourself.

wilber, can I ask how is it your privy to the agreement and it's machinations? oh and one more thing and I'll quote from the article the agreement hasn't been released. For that information to be released it requires approval by both nations. So wilber how is it you know what has been decided??? then this but the fact is you don't know, what was agreed to , because, the agreement was signed 2 weeks ago and never announced, but it is going to be, (after the fact) in that far reaching mainstream source of news and information The Canadian Forces Newspaper, what are the circulation numbers for that? target audience? oh but you'll not know anyway, unless both governments decide to release details. lots of assumptions demonstrated , but little actual knowledge. Unless you were at the signing?

unemployment is a factor in the job market. but I do understand the point you are making. The real point I was making was an 'underclass' is necessary for numerous reasons in a capitalist system, despite what pliny thinks. Alan Greenspan really makes his point with the 'benefit' of the traumatized worker.

everyone contributes to economic development. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/24/bus...bail.php?page=1 After subprime debacle, U.S. wrestles with question of bank bailouts A big change in the financial industry's laissez-faire attitude imagine my non-surprise , at the big change in attitude government rescue , that means taxpayers, who are already losing their shirts, their homes, their jobs read the banks could have prevented this entire debacle had they acted more prudently, but , there was so much money to be made, for a while anyway, and now the taxpayer, will bail the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. If a worker becomes unemployed that's his/her fault for being lazy and not wanting to further themselves, right?

any system does need a poor class. If everyone, was rich and successful , there would be no one to work, no menial labourer's. Also an unemployed class enables the capitalist to keep wages down. Just one benefit to be named. so the capitalist class, quite likes a traumatized worker who is simply fearful of losing a job! sounds like a tyranny ? rather then free exchange, which is not simply limited to a lack of taxes.

no my last statement with re; to Iraq, has zero to do with frustration, just with the facts: "Or the US wouldn't have invaded another nation , Iraq, to enable to set up new laws that benefitted western business interests, and change the entire structure of the country, to the benefit again of business interests." therefore: war is regularily used to enrich , is this 'capitlism'? . I mean it really is, it is the realilty, of what passes for capitalism, but it is not capitalism, it is in fact imperialism. so what do you belive in capitalism or the imperialism that is really practiced? See capitalism, would have invested , traded and dealt with Iraq sans warfare, but not imperialism. That type of plunder has typically been associated with imperialism or colonialism, or tyranny. So tell me about this "capitalism"?

wilber: do we know what the agreement entails? no what are the protocols? dunno did the government sign it in the open or in secret? back to square one.

Would the army come to help or control? Why does everyone assume help? Seems silly. And always with natural disasters or terrorism, like those are the only two possibilities how about food shortages or massive unemployment? How about mass protests? It makes no sense, no agreement was necessary, and could be done has it always has been done , on an as needed basis. if it ain't broken don't fix it! The system wasn't broken. It never ceases to amaze me how some people's naivety and lack of concern for their own nations sovereignty cause them to lose all objectivity. To say nothing of how our soldiers may fair on the US side of the border, and there are those nasty "contractors" to think about? Also , the Americans who are unhappy about this I suppose, they just have antipathy for Canada and Canadians? I do not think so, I think they are pro-American sovereignty, as the Canadians are ,who are concerned about this. But it is interesting, how some chose to portray Canadians who wish to see Canada put first, as the Americans do, as anti-american, instead of pro-canadian. I guess it is, just the comfort with the rhetoric of the day, and the applicable knee-jerk reaction, as opposed to having a realistic thought on a situation.

I understand capitalism to be whatever is the flavour of the day. Because it certainly has nothing to do with the free exchange of goods and sevices. Or the US wouldn't have invaded another nation , Iraq, to enable to set up new laws that benefitted western business interests, and change the entire structure of the country, to the benefit again of business interests. No if an actual free market reigned with free exchange of goods and services, that would have been done, sans warfare. personally speaking I would prefer less of both.

and the protests continue

I don't prove anything, I have a different opinion then you. You are operating on the premise that everything is occuring in a vacuum, and nothing is interdependant on anything else, which is nonsensical. You are a pipedreamer IMO cause you beleive in some sort of unrealistic vision of capitalism, thinking that the state and the society are two seperate entities " That's likely because the capitalist , will not allow the state to "leave you alone". Who do you really think is influential on decisions made by the state, the capitalist class or the voter?Take a reality check now. The answer is the capitalist.

without the help of military intervention of course, just buying selling, for what everything is actually worth right? . Capitalism exploits resources, because it must, it is the nature of the beast. It needs the resource of labour which the capitalist exploits to it's advantage. It exploits the environment and then leaves the mess to the stupid sucker "taxpayer" to clean up at the behest of the government , of course then it is for the good of everyone, but the destruction was to the benfit of the capitalist. As just 2 examples. Yup, that's it, it's anti-capitlist and that is why the capitalists "never" hold out their hands happily to the corporate welfare schemes that of course they have nothing to do with?! They of course never benefit from them either. lol!\No basis in the reality of what actually goes on. In that bastion of capitalism in the US. How many tax payers dollars will be needed to bail the sub-prime fiasco out? I am sure the capitalist bankers have nothing to do with that , after making all manner of profits, off of their funny mortgages, then bundling up for sale to numerous pension plans etc ., these funny mortgages, under fraudulent ratings, provided for by ratings company, such as moody's . Taxpayers will bail the banks out. Cause that's the free markets!

.pipedreamer all the way! You speak as if capitalism and the state are 2 seperate entities, yet, they go hand in hand so well , collectively, samples given. I beleive you are just confused as you are so caught up in some sort of illusory fantasy. Step outside of the norm and see how fast the society of largely conformists thinkers jumps on ya! See how fast the state will aid in that persecution. Or see how fast the state will persuade the conformist thinkers to jump on someone or some group who is different or out of the norm see an entire human history of persecution , lies leading to war, racial injustices! You speak as if everything functions in some seperated reality, this is not the case. it may all sound good on paper or in a speech, but the reality, is quite different.

why would you assume these troops were going to rescue you? When that is not necessarily the case. How could a government define "civil emergency"?

of course you would, you bought the pipedream. The capitalism we have has lots of state intervention, 'states' (tax payers) are always bailing out corporations, and lots of corporate welfare, to boot! see: northern rock recently You are already in a 'collective' under capitalism, you just think your not.

Laureen always seems like a stepford wife, IMO. bland and kept in the background.

why yes they are, history repeating itself?

Oh how i hate those labels. AW. I say that with the utmost respect to you. any one with a modicum of common sense would be concerned about this agreement. If we have helped on another in the past, great, no need for an agreement of this type. So why this agreement? Why now? Why in secret? What about concerns over who controls troops in which country? what about Posse comitatus ? What about the fact that Canadian soldiers will face a heavily armed populace stateside? What about the fact that here, US soldiers will have authority over a largely unarmed populace? potential abuses of the populace? and on and on. What exactly qualifies as a civil emergency??? Like I said anyone with a modicum of common sense would or should have concerns. I saw an American poster say and I quote "The first time a Canadian soldier kills an American on American soil. That will mark the begining of the last days of the Canadian Government. American Patriots will not rest until Canada is no more. There will be a huge expansion of the American territory to the North. America will cross into Canada and the destruction will not stop until we reach Alaska." that is not reassuring now is it?