ReeferMadness

This whole discussion seems to be happening in a moral vacuum. War crimes are being justified by what the Allies did in WWII or what the North Vietnamese did. AW seems to think it's OK for the USA to do damned near anything because "it did what it thought had to be done". I'm sure the people now in from of the ICC would love to have any of these defences. Noam Chomsky has said a number of times that if the rules of Nuremburg were applied, every post-WWII president would have been hanged. People here may not like his politics but his books are meticulously researched.

Hardy har har. I'm sure the orphaned kids in Southeast Asia would really appreciate your sense of humour.

So, you are saying that the USA is the moral equivalent of North Vietnam. As long as we all understand the yardstick.

It's really not that twisted at all. When you attack a country that hasn't attacked you, when you get a UN resolution to invade under false pretenses, when you bomb indiscriminately, without regard for civilian lives and infrastructure, you are guilty of war crimes. The fact that Nixon, Kissinger, Bush, Reagan, Cheney, Blair, and others have never been charged with war crimes has nothing to do with right or wrong. It's just a matter of politics and military might. But what goes around comes around. The USA will not remain the preeminent world power forever. Its lack of regard for morality combined with its ability to get away with whatever actions it chooses will be instructive to people who hold power in countries of future preeminent powers. I am greatly disturbed whenever Canada follows the USA into some ill-considered (and possibly illegal) war zone. It is fortunate that we have managed to avoid some of the most egregious examples of war criminality. However, I do acknowledge that on occasion, spineless leaders have put Canada into some military actions where our soldiers have been ordered to participate in morally repugnant actions. Actions that have resulted in needless civilian death and infrastructure destruction. Unlike you, however, I am not OK with that.

Well, why didn't you say so?? That makes it all OK, then, doesn't it? Bush and Blair were perfectly justified in lying to their own citizens and the world about the non-existent WMD. I think you should be part of the delegation that goes and explains this all to the relatives of dead Iraqis who were killed in the 'shock and awe'. You can tell them their kids and spouses and grandparents died because we called his bluff. It's not our fault we're better poker players is it?? It's OK that the "coalition of the willing" destroyed their country and enabled a low grade civil war. Because "his bluff was called".

Wow, you're at it again. The US does something wrong and you justify it by saying someone else did it first. You really can't accept it when your country is in the wrong, can you?

Again... you're using Allied war crimes during WWII to justify your war crimes during the Vietnam war. I'm sure that makes sense in some other universe, if not this one. It's a little like Saddam Hussein justifying his actions by saying that Genghis Khan was worse. So, you're OK with your country committing war crimes through indiscriminate bombing of countries that haven't even attacked you? How about the secret bombing of Cambodia was that OK too? Are you going to justify that with the Martian invasion of 2135?

I agree that there were plenty of unpunished war crimes (particularly among the Allies) during WWII as well. I'm just not sure how that in any way justifies you pouring napalm on kids. Do you think that's OK?

Too late. If there is a place on earth where madness rules..... Like Newtown, for example.

Oh, yeah. Like someone else was to blame for US planes pouring napalm on helpless kids. A clear example of where nobody was at fault.

They had no business invading either Iraq or Afghanistan. All they did is prove (once again) that might makes right. No wonder all these little countries run by dictators want nukes. If Iraq actually had workable nukes, the US would have gone nowhere near. The actions of the US and their camp-followers actually encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.

I don't agree with you often, b_c, but I think you've got it right. Inflation is caused by increased demand for goods and services. That demand can only be the result of people's income rising in real terms (not happening) or people going deeper into debt (can only go on for so long). The "endless growth" economic paradigm has hit a wall.

Truly. I still think he must have some financial interest in this flying butterball. The link I posted was pretty damning about the huge compromises made for the sake of limited stealth. Instead of responding to them, he posts pictures.

Since it's "too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire", I suppose getting home in time for tea is a huge success. I can't help but notice you've still not addressed any of the serious issues with the plane.

Tell me about a time they aided us in our defence. No, I don't consider our proximity to the world's most heavily armed country an asset. I haven't chided anyone - I've stated the facts. You were claiming that they were defending us. I'm simply pointing out they were acting only in their own best interest. Also, as I've mentioned earlier, being next to them has not made us safer. In a nuclear exchange with Russia, both sides would be lobbing missiles over our heads. Does that make you feel safer?? Since most of our large cities are in proximity of the southern border, we would suffer a lot of "collateral damage". Also due to our proximity, terrorists come to us simply to try to get to them. In answer to your question, we don't need to whore ourselves to anyone. In fact, we could simply grow a backbone and stop whoring ourselves to the US. Chretien managed it when he declined to take part in a stupid, illegal invasion of Iraq. Luckily, Chairman Harper hadn't assumed his virtual dictatorship yet.

And when the USA goes out and invades some other country because "it thinks it has to", how is it being morally superior to terrorists who launch an attack on the WTC because they think they have to?

As a proportion of population, more Canadians died in WWII than Americans. However, I wasn't talking about Canadians when I referred to the main participants. WWII was largely a war of attrition between Germany and the USSR. If the Soviet Union hadn't bled the Germans, I don't believe for a moment that there would have been landings on Normandy. Your great tales of valour were only possible because of the sacrifices of you enemies, the Soviets. You want to talk about complicity? Some of Hitler's most ardent admirers were American industrialists (Henry Ford, Thomas Watson among them). Without IBM support, the holocaust would not have been possible in its scale.

I don't know anyone who has ever suggested that "we should change nothing". There is, however, a lot that we can do to limit the deleterious effects on the environment. For starters, we can stop obsessing about the GDP. GDP is simply a measure of how much money was spent, not what value was achieved for it. Measuring an economy on the basis of GDP is like measuring a party based solely on the amount of money you spent hosting it. Another thing that we can do is proper accounting of our natural world. The world is a finite place. When we extract minerals from the ground or cut down trees, we're not creating something from nothing. We are taking something that that something will not be available to our children. Accountants would say we're drawing down an asset. Natural world accounting should also take into account the damage we're doing to the water, air and ecosystems. That's pretty hard to do when people won't even admit there is damage being done.

To anyone else who might be paying attention: read the article - it's doubtful TimG did. The scientist he is referring to (Andrew Weaver) is just one of a list of scientists and science reporters referenced. In addition to the scientists who feel they are being muzzed, science reporters are reporting that it is harder and harder to get access to Canadian scientists. Your characterization of this article is so dishonest, it's obvious that you can't refute its point. I have made serious attempts to limit my ecological footprint. I cycle to work, drive little and make a concerted effort to consume as little as I can. I would be happy to support carbon taxes and other pollution taxes that would repair or otherwise pay for the damage that my behaviour causes. And what about you?

Well, that's your view. International science organizations disagree with you. But I'm sure you know best, right? Industry doesn't want to pay full costs for damages? Fine. There will be no costs if there are no damages. The solution is easy. Just fix it. If your product releases SO2, remove it from the atmosphere. If your fracking releases chemicals deep underground, just clean them up. If you dig up the earth to get coal, make the place look exactly as it did before when you leave. If you contaminate a watershed, clean it up before the water reaches someone's drinking water downstream. See, no problem.

And every time that happens, people, mostly poor, mostly dark-skinned die in huge numbers. But that's OK, because it's the US doing "what it felt it had to do"??? BTW, the 911 perpetrators were also doing what they felt they had to do. Bad things happen when people feel they are entitled to do what they think they have to do.

They've never had a reason to. We do mostly what they want us to and they have significant investments here. Why ruin a good thing? Things can change, though. So we can be in debt the way they are? No thanks.

I can see how you would have that view if your knowledge of history is based on John Wayne movies. A more accurate view would be that the US sat back and profited from the wars until the main participants had exhausted themselves. Then they stepped in to shift the balance and ride on the backs of the millions already dead to victory. Without the world wars, the US would not have been the pre-eminent world power in the latter half of the 20th century. Further comments will be directly related to WWII because it is more recent and I've read more about it. In WWII, the the real European theatre was in the USSR. You can say what you want about them and Stalin. The fact is that they bled the Russians dry at a cost of 20+ million of their own. They fought because they had nowhere to go. The Americans sat back and gave them just enough support to keep them from collapsing. If Hitler had honoured the pact with Stalin and the panzer divisions that were destroyed in the east were deployed in the west, would the Americans have invaded? I don't see it. Allied tanks at the time were no match for panzers. If we had to face them in the numbers that the Soviets did, we'd have been in big trouble. By time d-day finally rolled around, Germany was already beaten. It was a mad race, not to destroy Germany (which was already in full retreat in the east) but to occupy Western Europe before the Soviets did.

So, it's all about money, then is that your view? Sell the napalm and pay no attention to the kids who burnt to death in Asia? Does that nicely sum up your views?? If the military industry didn't exist, we'd be better off, not worse. The people who do research into ways of killing people have skills that could be better used for other purposes. You may think that by smearing Canada's participation in your dirtydeeds, it makes us all the same. It doesn't.

Independents win only occasionally under FPTP. Do the research and you'll find they have a better shot under STV.