ReeferMadness

This crisis was caused mainly by excess personal debt (mostly on the part of Americans) and I find it a bit bizarre that the way to fix it is to create larger government debt. Of course, in our crazy economic system, debt is necessary. Without it, we'd have no money supply. However , what seems to have happened over the past few decades is a mass wealth transfer from western countries to developing countries (China mostly) where the money is being saved. So, now we are like heroin addicts, dependent on debt for money supply, dependent on eternal economic growth without which the whole ponzi scheme will come crashing down. At this point, it seems inevitable that the government is going to start to run massive deficits - again. (Anybody remember what was happening the last time the Conservatives were in power? That's right, we were running massive deficits). The worst possible thing the government could do would be to cut taxes. The benefits will overwhelmingly go to the rich who will either save it or spend it on luxury goods and vacations which mainly benefit people outside of Canada.

Speak for yourself. You cannot and do not speak for "the rest of Canada". From what I've read in this forum, you may have raised a legitimate concern but it's not worthy of the hysterical tone in which it's been presented. Also, I've seen more than a couple of post that demonize Islam. That's neither fair nor helpful. Some of you need to examine your attitudes towards other cultures and religions.

The laws weren't there before WWII - I think Chomsky is trying to be fairer than the Allies who imposed the victors justice. Chomsky is American himself - why don't you ask him why "it's only the Americans".

Chomsky is speaking of the laws that were created at Nuremburg to mete out the victor's justice, not the German laws to which you refer. I would think that most people of average or better intelligence could infer that from the context so it makes me wonder whether you're just baiting me. Here's a link: Chomsky - Nuremberg BTW, Chomsky isn't advocating hanging presidents, he's illustrating the brutal and hypocritical double-standards that exist in international politics.

Not a bad idea.... In a country as ligitous as the US, it just might work.

If you can make it stick, go ahead. The case against Bush is crystal clear, though. I would say there is also a very good case against Clinton for wiping out the pharmaceutical factory in Africa. Also, people should do some research on what gets bombed. Water treatment plants. Schools. Electrical generation facilities. Television stations. There was huge outrage over the twin towers being civilian targets but the wholesale destruction of civilian infrastructure is hardly worthy of comment as long as it happens to someone else. Chomsky once said "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.". That was about 20 years ago but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have changed his mind over Clinton or the 2 Bushes.

That's a good question. I'm not a lawyer but the closest I could come to an answer was this excerpt from an Amnesty International document. My interpretation is that the answer to your question is 'no' but as I said, I'm not a lawyer. The full text of the document can be found here: Amnesty International The coalition has followed up an illegal war by failing in its obligations under international law. Specifically, 5 years after the invasion, basic services are still lacking. Further, the wholesale changes to the Iraqi economic law and privatization of state assets were completely illegal. According to this 2008 Amnesty International assessment, 4.2 million people are still displaced, in a country with less population than ours. The same report cites continuing gross human rights abuses on all sides, including the coalition. It isn't enough for people to say "we were trying to help" or "at least Saddam isn't there". If you're going to invade another country, you have obligations, both moral and legal, to ensure this doesn't happen.

A very honest answer. But then when the people who suffer because of policies of western "national self interest" lash out at us, we lie to ourselves saying "They hate us because of our freedom". Maybe we should be be replacing national self interest with enlighted self interest.

All I see is a breakdown between ISF (which I presume means Iraqi Security Forces) and civilians. I can't find where it says who they were killed by. You might be seeing what you want to see. I also notice this : Meaning these statistics aren't worth toilet paper. I also notice that there are very detailed statistics on the US casualties but no accurate numbers of Iraqis killed - an indication that the coalition doesn't really care how many 3rd world civilians die. Finally, I should point out that under international law, the coalition has a responsibility to maintain order and rebuild. This means that the coalition is reponsible for those violent deaths that occurred because of the failure to maintain order and also those due to the lack of infrastructure destroyed in the war.

I think there are huge double standards here. Some countries can run around invading countries as they please. Others become members of the axis of evil There need to be strict, internationally agreed standards around interfering in another country's affairs - such as: reliable evidence that the local population wants us there reliable evidence that mass murder is taking place or is about to take place a solid indication that the impact of the action on the local population will be less than if we do nothing an international force that contains a significant number of soldiers with whom the local population can identify (e.g. common culture or common faith) Also, there needs to be some way of avoiding the WMD hypocrisy. It seems like there is a serious double standard that the US with its horrendous stockpiles of WMD's runs around deciding who should and shouldn't have them. And there are probably some tens of millions of people in the Middle East who wonder why it's OK that Israel have a huge stockpile of nukes but nobody else is allowed. One of the big problems in international politics is the (perfectly understandable) perception that it's just a case of might makes right.

72.9847% of statistics are pulled out of people's asses. Until you can quote a reliable source, I'm assuming yours if one of them.

I don't know what aquaculture you mean but on the west coast, they have net-based containment systems that poison the local environment with waste products and antibiotics while the sea lice from the farmed fish infest and kill the wild salmon. Link Link Link Link There are dozens more links if you want them. Of course, I'm sure you're an aquaculture expert.

I grew up in Alberta - I don't think I was taught that Jesus preached Chinese proverbs.

Well, he did order the invasion and destruction of an entire country to get rid of WMD - no, wait, it was because they were harbouring al quaeda -hang on, it was to get rid of a vicious dictator that was supported by his father and Ronald Reagan Whatever he did, at least he didn't do anything as bad as bin Laden.

Do a series of rambling non-sequitirs make a convincing argument?

Why were you suspended?

Teach a man commercial fishing and he'll destroy the seabed, make species extinct and put the rest of the fishers out of business. When did Jesus start to quote chinese proverbs?

Yes, it seems so self-evident, doesn't it? Don't count on the knuckle-draggers in the current government to do anything other than further pursue the failed policies of prohibition. I think there was a window of opportunity when Chretien was in power but he was probably too afraid of the US reaction.

Only because he used the GG to avoid facing the body to which he is accountable. If Harper (and you) would like the rules to be that way, the ethical and honest thing to do would be to put it before the people and have the consitution changed. The dishonest and unethical thing would be just to pretend the rules are whatever happens to benefit the Conservatives. Guess what he chose. And if Harper had announced before the election he was going to needlessly provoke the opposition how many votes would he have gotten? I bet you find it so much easier to argue with what you would like me to have said instead of what I actually said. Go back, drink some coffee and re-read the original post. I responded to Ironstone who said there was "unquestionably a pro left wing bias in the media". I never said there was any bias. I only pointed out that the media was controlled by large Corporations who, in my experience, aren't noted for being run by wild-eyed communists; so a left-wing bias seems unlikely. I should also point out that I find the terms "left" and "right" to be largely meaningless. With respect to the role of the media, it's often assumed they are in the business of selling news and entertainment to their audiences. In fact, advertisers generate most of the revenue and it's more accurate to say they are in the business of selling their audiences to the advertisers. Based on that, one could logically conclude that what the media put into their shows will be driven mainly by the interests of the audidences but there will be a strong interest in not alienating the advertisers. (In fact, if you go to the AdBusters website, you'll find that some of their ads are rejected because they are critical of other advertisers). Logically,. we can also conclude that in general, the programming will be skewed to the interests of wealthier groups because they're going to make more money selling these audiences to advertisers.

In the US, most of the western world is populated by pinkos, most of the rest of the world is populated by terrorists. I'm willing to be wrong, though. I said that our media are overwhelmingly controlled by large corporations. Do I need to substantiate that? Do you have information that proves me wrong?

I'd be more than happy with that if it turned out that way. I think it's very likely, though, that the CPC would rediscover its roots and splinter. It remains to this day a shotgun wedding of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and libertarians. I think the result would be at least 2 and maybe 3 parties. Your preference sounds very much like the American system. Forced to vote between 2 parties, I'd probably just stay home. The world is not a binary entity. After what I've seen this week, I'd be happier if there were no parties - just members of parliament. Then maybe we could dispense with this whole left-right paradigm and focus on the issues. BC nearly got STV in 2005 and it could still happen in 2009. I think there would be some short term problems but long term, it could lessen the polarization of politics.

You lose any credibility with your first couple of sentences. Who are "left wingers"? The NDP and their supporters? The bloc? Or just anyone who happens to disagree with you? This is nothing more than a drive-by smear of an ill-defined group of people. I've not seen anyone make an argument that Stephane Dion is the "rightful Prime Minister of Canada" (although someone may indeed have made the argument elsewhere)". Anyone who understands our system of Parliamentary Democracy knows there is no "rightful Prime Minister". We elect representatives and they choose the Prime Minister. Any PM that can't get and hold the confidence of parliament doesn't get to remain PM. It sounds to me like VMG understands that we don't have a system of direct democracy. Probably, that's not such a bad thing given how few people understand the system we have now. No, but you clearly are poorly informed. You don't need to be a supporter of the coalition to understand that they (as the majority) have a right to form a government under our system of democracy. I'm italicizing key words here so you might get the idea. Why don't you start by educating yourself on our system of government? :lol: Sorry, I can't help but giggle everytime someone accuses the media, which are overwhelmingly controlled by large corporations, of left wing bias. And to answer your question, you are uninformed here.

You're absolutely right. And if you add the green vote to the coalition, they have a majority without the bloc at all. Electoral reform is always tricky because the government in power almost always gains by the FPTP system. Also, electoral reform would severely hurt the bloc and this would become a unity issue.

BCC, I think I understand what you're trying to say but comparing Dion's persistence at trying to be PM to sexual harrassment seems like kind of a cheap shot. Dion was a compromise choice for the Liberals. Even if his English was better, he'd still be a lousy communicator (I'm surprised the Liberals didn't get him to work on his English before the last election, I find it takes real effort to understand him). And I think his organizational skills are lacking. So he's not a great leader and never going to be one. Still, I admire the guy for persisting. If I'd taken half the abuse he's taken, I would have packed up and gone home. During the election, he knew he was pushing an unpopular idea that was easy for the Conservatives to take cheap shots at but he went at it with honesty and integrity. In terms of those two qualities, the only federal leaders I've ever seen that would stack up against him were two Albertans, Joe Clark and Preston Manning. Neither of them were master politicians (and I never liked what Manning stood for) but you knew where they stood. Edited to add Ed Broadbent to the list. I'm sure Tommy Douglas would be on the list as well but I'm not old enough to remember him. That's what really scares me about Harper. His actions have demonstrated very clearly that he's autocratic, manipulative and conniving. I think that he campaigns from a more centrist position than he will govern if we're ever foolish enough to give him a majority. I have no trust or respect for a guy like that - he shouldn't be leader of anything.

The preceding mindless rhetoric has been sponsored by the Conservative Party of Canada. TCCK, you obviously don't know anything about our system of governance, you don't know what a coup d'etat is, you don't know anything about 1917 Russia, and your fear-mongering is too laughable to even merit comment. Tell us the name of this 'major law firm' who is taking this on.