Peter F

I don't think they are psycho's. I think they are just ordinary kids placed in extrodinary circumstance. If buy carrying guns around and shooting people is psychotic then Army Guy is a psycho who should be placed in prison upon his return. But I don't think Army Guy is psychotic just because he was in battle. Nor do I think kids are psychotic for being in battle either. So cheek-pinching and gush with "pooochie-poochie this cute little boy/girl?" and taking them to the fair is probably a very good place to start.

Said map was said to detail Ottawa government buildings. I wonder who is saying those things?

and Army Guy described pretty much the same situation. So yeah, its possible. Well, since everybody seems to think I am saying 'Let child soldiers run amok - you brutes!' Let me re-iterate that this is what I said regarding child soldiers in combat: "10 year olds, or 15 year olds carrying weapons, and most certainly if fireing those weapons, are very likely to be shot. An unpleasant situation in regards to child-soldiers but understandable nevertheless." What that means is Kids fireing weapons at soldiers are going to be shot. Its really a shame, but - can't really blame soldiers for shooting kids who are shooting at them. I don't think anyone who kills a kid who is engaging them in combat can be blamed for anything. No leniency nor compassion required. Shoot them; Bayonet them; incinerate them; blow them to bits with 500lb bombs; stitch them up with 25mm chain-guns. Just like any other combatant. But after...when they have surrendered and/or been captured: then they need be treated as the children they used to be and not incarcerated in maximum security prisons for the next 30 years with a life sentence like every other adult non-western combatant apparently should be. In fact, I think this country has signed an agreement to that effect and it therefore has the force of law behind it and is very probably what we would do if we ever get ahold of a child soldier. I have yet to hear of that happening though.

Too late! Two children;All growed up...wich is more than can be said for you, by the sound of it. Nobody die's for me. I do my own dying. .. I find your suggestion that others should die for me as tremendously egotistical. I am not worthy of thier deaths. and neither are you.

I speak now to you personally, Army Guy, and not to White Doors who can kiss my royal red-marxist ass... I know I am sitting in my Lazyboy in my airconditioned home sipping my scotch pronouncing on what I would do if I were in such and such situation. I know it carries zero weight. I do not claim to be the 'better man'; I am not White Doors and do not claim that what I think is the proper way for everyone else to think. You act as your concience requires you to. So will I. The honest truth is...in the unpleasant situation you described - I would be dead. Being a peacnik is not without cost.

Ok. Civilian casualties are to be avoided, even at the cost of ISAF forces lives and even if the Taliban take advantage of that wussy attitude - as they most certainly would. Canada should never have taken on the task it did in Afghanistan. The Canadian Armed Forces cannot pull out now even if we wanted to and even if, in some fantasy world, the NDP or BQ form the government of this country. We are stuck until 2011. People think of themselves as the 'Best of the Best' - even when they're not. Child soldiers should not be treated as criminals even if they are. They should not be put on trial for terrorism even if they are. They should not be charged with War Crimes even if they did it. Child soldiers get a free pass. Omar Khadr may or may not be considered a child-soldier. If so then see above; If not then see below. Omar Khadr may or may not have killed an American SSF soldier in a gun-battle. There is a panel of US Forces officers that will determine the answer to that question. No one on this board has any-fuckin-clue what happened or did not happen in battle where Omar Khadr was captured - not even White Doors (if you can beleive it). Omar Khadr is as much responsible for his presence in Afghanistan as I was for my presence at Lake Louise when my parents took me there at the age of 12. Had I have been left in Banff National Park at that time, I would have been as responible for my parents choice of my guardian/s as Omar Khadr was for his parents choice of guardians when his parents actually did leave him there. Omar Khadr, even if trained in the ways of terrorism, a very small potatoe at worst. The Taliban is an organization of Radical - Fundimentalist - Muslims. Some of them are right bastard scum. Some are not. Some are terrororism is wonderful stuff. Some do not. Terrorism is baaaaad. Terrorism is very very baaaaaad. Terrorism is ...well...terrible. I condemn terrorism. I despise terrorism. I think terrorists are the scum of the earth. No matter the motivation of the terrorist, the means of the terrorist, wether are a suicidal terrorist or one who gets others to do the deeds for him/her: All terrorists are scum. Feminism is and has been a great progressive movement. Our world would be much more oppresive with out it. Hurrah for feminism. May we have more of it. The Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are doing the very best they can with the limited resources they have. Despite what you like to think I like to think, I do not think they :Dlove killing civilians. I actually think - believe it or not you-ignorant-fuck, that they are doing thier utmost to avoid them!

I am wanting us to do nothing? I'm saying the Taliban arent such bad guys afterall? I think we should pull out and leave the innocents of Afghanistan to the will of the Taliban? How shall I reconcile this with my assumed (you're assumption is correct by the way) backing of feminism? Where the hell is all this coming from?

I don't think my line of reasoning is unreasonable. Following my line of reasoning, I would not have been the cause of any of the incidents listed in post #94 of this thread. The downside of my line of reasoning is that I would definately have been involved in the incidents listed in post #95. My line of reasoning, no matter how disagreable to you, is something. Whereas, on the other hand, you have yet to produce any line of reasoning. So I'm one up on you.

I realize you think its perfectly acceptable that all others should be sacrificed for your own good. Not-so-respectfully: I disagree.

Betsy's question was: What would you do if 10 year old afghani is charging towards me wrapped in explosives. It was disingenious because it was designed to get one, only one respons. The 10 year old is guilty and will die no matter what the hypothetical 'i' does. So in Betsy's world, do I shoot the kid and live? or do I not shoot the kid and die? either way the kids toast because he will blow up whatever I decide. It was a bullshit question. Burst my bubbles all you wish. The fact is Canada did not send the Armed Forces to Afghanistan to kill civilians. That is to be avoided if at all possible. Perhaps I do underestimate my will to survive...we will probably never know wether I do or not. But logically speaking, to my mind, if I were soldier in afghanistan, and given a far more realistic situation than that provided by Betsy, If I cannot identify a potential target as a civilian, yet that target can possibly be a threat; Should I shoot now or wait for the situation to clarify at the risk of my own safety? I like to think I would take the risk and wait rather than shoot first and issue apologies later. Back to the issue at hand: People, no matter thier age, who carry arms in combat zones tend to attract the fire of others, no matter thier age, who also carry arms in combat zones. That is the nature of a combat zone. So 10 year olds, or 15 year olds carrying weapons, and most certainly if fireing those weapons, are very likely to be shot. An unpleasant situation in regards to child-soldiers but understandable nevertheless. However, once the child soldier is subdued, or surrenders or by some other means comes into the hands of the opposing forces, then that child-soldier should be treated with great compassion and leniency and not as a terrorist or heinous criminal.

Incidents in 2008 where suicide bombers killed ISAF forces or civilians in the presence of ISAF forces Three ISAF soldiers, one ISAF interpreter and three Afghan civilians killed by suicide attack in Gereshk KABUL, Afghanistan – On Monday, 17 March 2008 at approximately 9:35 a.m. a Civil-Military Co-operation (CIMIC) convoy providing assistance to local authorities in the town of Gereshk in Helmand Province was hit by a suicide improvised explosive device that detonated near the ISAF vehicles. Three ISAF soldiers, one ISAF interpreter and three Afghan civilians were killed by the blast. Four ISAF soldiers and approximately six Afghan civilians were wounded. At this time, the status of all the wounded civilians is not known, but the soldiers’ injuries are not considered life-threatening. ISAF press release 2 ISAF soldiers die, 4 wounded in Nangarhar province explosion KABUL, Afghanistan – Two ISAF soldiers were killed and four were wounded today when their patrol was struck by a suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (SVBIED) in Nangarhar province. ISAF press release Three ISAF soldiers died of wounds, one ISAF soldier wounded by suicide attack in southern Afghanistan KABUL, Afghanistan– Four ISAF soldiers were initially wounded in an insurgent suicide attack in southern Afghanistan, June 8. The injured soldiers were evacuated to an ISAF base in the area to receive medical care where three soldiers later died of wounds. ISAF press release ISAF soldier, four civilians dead following IED strike KABUL, Afghanistan - One ISAF soldier and four civilians have died from wounds sustained following a vehicle-borne IED strike in Kabul August 11. In addition, two ISAF soldiers and eight civilians were wounded in this suicide attack that targeted an ISAF convoy. ISAF press release Afghan interpreter killed and Afghan child seriously wounded by a suicide bomb in Kandahar province KABUL, Afghanistan - An Afghan interpreter was killed today by a suicide bomb attack on a joint ANSF and ISAF security patrol in Panjwayi District August 18. One Afghan child was seriously injured and an ISAF soldier was also wounded in the attack, which took place near the outskirts of Bazaar-e-Panjwayi. ISAF press release

Incidents in 2008 wherein Afghan civilians were killed by ISAF forces because they might have been suicide bombers. Source:ISAF website ISAF troops repeat warning measures to stop driver KABUL, Afghanistan – An ISAF unit on a security patrol near Kandahar Airfield took force escalation measures when a truck approached their patrol Jan. 31. In an effort to keep the truck from getting closer, clear and measured warning signals were issued by ISAF troops. The driver failed to heed the repeated warnings to stop, including their deployment of flares. A shot aimed at the ground was fired, but the truck continued towards the patrol. ISAF troops then fired a second shot at the truck’s engine block that stopped the vehicle. The site was secured and the driver, injured by the shot, was transported to an ISAF medical facility. The driver later died of wounds. ISAF press release ISAF convoy fires warning shot to halt driver KABUL, Afghanistan – An ISAF unit conducting a convoy in Farah Province took force escalation measures when a civilian car approached their vehicle today. ISAF troops gave the driver clear and measured warning signals, to include a warning shot fired in the air, to keep the car at a safe distance. The driver failed to heed the repeated warnings to stop. Finally, a warning shot aimed at the ground was fired. ISAF troops continued on and were later informed by Afghan National Police that their warning shot had ricochet and injured the car’s driver and killed the passenger ISAF press release ISAF troops repeat warning measures to stop vehicle KABUL, Afghanistan – An ISAF unit travelling near Kandahar Airfield took force escalation measures April 2, to protect itself from a fast-moving vehicle which failed to heed warning signs to stop. In an effort to keep the vehicle from getting closer, clear and measured warning signals were issued by ISAF troops. After failing to comply with repeated warnings to stop, ISAF fired one warning shot. As a result, one civilian was killed and three were injured. ISAF press release ISAF escalation of force incident, 4 civilians dead and three others wounded KABUL, Afghanistan — ISAF soldiers opened fire on a vehicle that failed to stop at a check point earlier today killing four civilian occupants and wounding three others. Two further occupants were unharmed. The incident occurred in the Sangin district of Helmand Province. The vehicle approached the check point and was directed to stop but it drove on. ISAF soldiers fired warning shots in a safe direction away from the vehicle but were eventually forced to fire at it when it refused to stop, fearing an insurgent attack. ISAF press release ISAF escalation of force incident, two civilians dead and one other wounded KABUL, Afghanistan - ISAF soldiers opened fire on a vehicle being driven in a threatening manner and ignoring warnings, killing two child occupants and wounding one adult on July 27 at approximately 7:30 p.m. The incident occurred in Kandahar Province. ISAF was conducting a security patrol when they were approached by a vehicle. The vehicle was directed to keep its distance but it did not comply. ISAF soldiers gave hand, arm and audio signals as well as flashing light signals to stop. When the vehicle was 10 metres away and still approaching rapidly, the ISAF soldiers, fearing an attack, fired on it. ISAF press release KABUL, Afghanistan - ISAF forces opened fire on an Afghan man who approached their patrol in the vicinity of an ISAF base the morning of August 12. The incident occurred in Helmand Province. ISAF was conducting a patrol when they were approached by a vehicle. The vehicle was directed to keep its distance but it did not comply. ISAF soldiers gave hand, arm and audio signals as well as flashing light signals to stop. When the vehicle was 10 metres away and still approaching rapidly, the ISAF soldiers, fearing an attack, fired on it. The male driver was given immediate medical treatment at the scene by the patrol and than taken to a nearby base for further treatment. Despite the efforts of medical personnel, the man later died from his wounds. ISAF press release ISAF escalation of force incident in Kunduz province killed three civilians KABUL, Afghanistan - ISAF forces and ANSF opened fire on a vehicle that failed to stop at a check point killing three civilian occupants, two children and one woman, and wounding two others August 28. The incident occurred in the Kunduz district of Kunduz Province. Two vehicles approached a check point run by ISAF forces and ANSF and were directed to stop but drove on. ISAF soldiers fired warning shots in a safe direction away from the vehicles but were eventually forced to fire at the first vehicle when it refused to stop, fearing an insurgent attack. ISAF press release ISAF shoots civilian who ran toward patrol, failed to stop KABUL, Afghanistan - ISAF soldiers followed all escalation of force procedures when an Afghan man ran toward their ground patrol in Sangin district, Helmand, September 4. Following a warning shot, the man continued to run toward the patrol at which time the ISAF patrol perceived him as a possible suicide bomber and shot him, wounding the man. After safely determining the man was not a threat, the ISAF patrol evacuated him to Camp Bastion for medical care. ISAF press release Escalation of Force in Kandahar province Kabul, Afghanistan - At approximately 8.30p.m. 18 September an ISAF convoy was approached, head on, by a jingle truck in the vicinity of Kandahar City. The vehicle failed to respond to warning signals, of flashing lights and vehicle horn, and failed to stop. Following approved escalation of force procedures, one warning shot was fired, the vehicle still failed to stop. A further two shots were fired directly at the vehicle, killing one civilian. ISAF press release ISAF reluctantly kills civilian KABUL, Afghanistan — An ISAF patrol reluctantly shot and killed a civilian who failed to yield to warnings to stop Sept. 20 in Sangin district, Helmand. The incident began when a civilian approached an ISAF foot patrol. The patrol gave verbal warnings asking for the civilian to stop. When the civilian failed to stop, the patrol fired two warning shots. The civilian still failed to stop. Fearing a suicide bomber, the patrol targeted the civilian and fired one round wounding the civilian. Even with immediate first aid, the civilian later died from that wound. ISAF press release ISAF shoots civilian who failed to stop when warned KABUL, Afghanistan - ISAF shot a civilian who approached too close to a patrol and failed to stop when directed in Sangin district, Helmand, September 29. The individual subsequently died of their wounds. When the patrol noticed a man approaching, soldiers signalled to warn him to stop as he drew closer. When he failed to stop and continued to approach, a soldier issued a verbal warning then fired two shots further warning him to back away. He failed to react to either and, fearing a suicide bomber, the soldier then fired one aimed shot that killed the man. ISAF press release

Ah. A worthy cause. I should live so that others may die.

I'm sure the employee's wouldn't have preferred their union negotiating lower wages. But wether the union should do such a silly thing or not is niether here nor there because management had no intention of negotiating wage cuts. SCC decision re:Bill 29, italics mine (Riverwind:) Sure, all well and good, cept for your managment-really-really-didn't-want-to-sack-the- employee's-but-the-union-was-inflexible-and-just-would-not-listen-to-reason bullshit

Yes, Riverwind. The union should be 'flexible' and agree with wage cuts or anything else management wants. The union did not screw the employee's by fireing the employee's. Management fired the employee's. Unions do not fire employee's: they can't. Only management can fire employee's. The reason those people were fired is because management fired them. Management could have done what you said and happily paid them what they supposedly offered to pay them but instead the BC government passed an act of legislature allowing management to sack the employee's concerned -they did not pass an act of legislature allowing management to pay them less. An action declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, I happily add. So get off the horsebullocks that its the unions fault. The union did exactly what they were supposed to do. Management had NO intention of paying those employee's what they were worth. Thier negotiations were a sham.

Now yer gettin' it

Perhaps, if the company is going broke, a negotiated wage cut may be the thing to do. They've certainly gone that route here with the pulp mills. Note, however, the use of the term 'negotiated'. If the company is going broke they can easily shut down and put everyone out of a job. That has been done often enough too. But Riverwinds example is a very poor one. Negotiations implies a little give and take. What was the BC government offering in return for the wage cut? They get to keep thier jobs? No. Not at all. They offered nothing. The BC government was simply going through motions. They had every intention of sacking those people but couldn't do so without the 'negotiations' failing for political appearances sake. The proof of such is: "the government fired the employees and contracted out the work." Wich means the government realized they need someone to do the work. They didn't hire anyone to replace the workers sacked. They didn't grandfather the present workers into the contractors deal. They had no intention of keeping the employees on at reduced wages. They wanted the work those employee's were doing removed entirely from the responsibility of the government. So they sacked them and signed deals with contractors to provide the still needed service. There was no attempt to 'negotiate' wage reductions. The union knew that and rejected the bogus 'offer' of the government.

Uh huh. Thats because the Oil companies have great big hearts and are very concerned about the standard of living of their employees right? ...or maybe its because they couldn't get anyone working for them without paying more. Unionized or not.

and they would have been even better off if the Union had negotiated wage cuts above and beyond what management wanted, I'm sure. Perhaps the Union could have done the employee's a favour by negotiating conditions of serfdom for them. At what point are wage cuts no longer worth it to the employee's? Is there any condition where a union should reject wage cuts?

And if Walmart willingly gave these people pay increases then it would be ok.

but a piece of paper does make one a Canadian. 100% Canadian.

Jeez! The nerve! Homes for the underprivileged! Only in America...

actually, there is a big gain for seperatists: the trial seperation inevitably turns into the real thing.

Yes. And me shooting the kid dead would have different results how?

Ive been strapped too and I like to think it never drove me insane either. The fear was that, as you say, you had to be a really bad kid to get it. With hindsight I know now that that was horseshit - you didn't have to be a really bad kid to get it. You just had to be a kid behaving badly and sometimes not-so-badly and sometimes not-badly at all. I have no recollection of any schoolmeister calling any kids parents to seek permission to strap. They just did it - and sometimes phoned the kids parents afterwards, sometimes not at all. I'm 52 now, and have seen two of my children through public school. They told me all about the bad behaviour of others at school, and sometimes I dragged out admissions of their own bad behavior. I believe there is no difference between kids behaviour when I was in public school during the strapping age (the sixties) and the kids my kids went to school with (the ninties). The mythology of the strap "back in my day" certainly struck fear into our naieve little hearts, but thats all it did. It certainly did not change our behaviour. The other fact is the strap was never used to punish classroom behaviour. We were strapped for stealing other kids marbles and fighting and encouraging others to do dangerous things. Not for being disruptive in the classroom. The cure for excessive disruption has been and always will be the same: ejection from the classroom. The kid gets to have a time-out standing in the hall, or sitting in a chair in the principals office. The kids behaviour will not change, but at least the teacher can get on with teaching. The other thing is; Disruptive kids rarely, if ever, stopped being disruptive kids. No matter the punishments or anger of the teacher, I know this because I spent grades 1 thru 8 in the same public school with the same bunch of kids year after year after year. Rory would be strapped 1-3 times each year for his bad behaviour and lippiness. Eddie would get strapped for fighting year after year. Holly never shut up - year after year. Murray and Brian clowned and clowned and clowned year after year after year. Terry was bullied by everybody year after year after year and Sally was ostricized for being "stinky" year after year and I stared out the window daydreaming year after year after year. Kids behaviour changes as they grow up; not because of a strapping from time to time. "in my day" we too recited the lords prayer and it had zero effect on anything we did. No miracles occurred because of our recitations, we weren't touched by the hand of God to make us behave and we garnered no ethical lessons from the contemplation of it. Our mumblings of the Lords Prayer each morning had the same effect on our characters as our singing of "God Save the Queen" each morning: Nada.