Sir Bandelot

All American adventures. In fact you are only supporting my past claims that these events are worthy of investigations and prosecution of the leadership that was in power. Maybe it's because the Brits still have a mere shred of integrity left. The difference is that NATO did not attack preemptively, the war was already on and NATO stepped in to try and stop it. American influence was the tipping factor that undermined the possibility of peace and finally lead to the conflict. But I was not there. I'm sure that you have a lot more you could tell us, so please feel free to do so.

Oh yes people have been prosecuted for the war crimes in what was formerly Yugoslavia. That was a very complicated situation which was already in a state of war due to the breakup of that country. Theres very little (if any) comparison in the lead up to the war in Iraq. The "bogus" international law was set up and supported by former US presidents. What happened? They knew what war is really about, unlike the chicken hawks we have in charge today. Most of the neocons have never served, I understand. Cheney was a draft dodger. Ironically they are the first ones who want to call in the troops once they get the power to do so.

Threatening rhetoric is just words, and a lot of them do it. The Chinese are famous for it. Lets invade tem, before they get too strong and become a threat to us. This is about how a group of leaders from various nations collaborated to prop up false evidence as justification for an illegal invasion. They should have worked within the law and used other options available to them. The neocons think they are exempt from law because they have a higher moral authority. Thats irrational and dangerous. Thats not unlike what the Ayatollahs might think about themselves. Thats why they must be prosecuted.

Blair's admission that Britain would have backed the Iraq war even if he knew it did not have weapons of mass destruction sparked outrage Sunday and calls for his prosecution for war crimes. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/britain_iraq_politics_inquiry_military_blair Professor Philippe Sands, a leading international lawyer, said he believed Blair's comments had left him vulnerable to legal proceedings. "The fact that the policy was fixed by Tony Blair irrespective of the facts on the ground, and irrespective of the legality, will now expose him more rather than less to legal difficulties," Sands told The Sunday Herald. Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix added: "The war was sold on the WMD, and now you feel, or hear that it was only a question of deployment of arguments, as he said, it sounds a bit like a fig leaf that was held up." And if they do that, we can do that too. In fact we have an obligation for future generations, not to allow the same mistakes and manipulations to be made to start illegal wars, and to ensure that all such crimes are prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under law. "Bring it on..."

Well jbg doesn't need to worry about that anymore...

To me it's not a question about what's "bad" for you, but about whether imposing criminality on drug users is the right aproach. I think the evidence is well in. Simply put, prohibition has not solved the problem. Instead what it's done is ramped up the level of violence in our society, by putting drug distribution into the hands of organized criminals. Prohibition doesn't remove the market or demand for drugs, it just forces the distribution to go underground, and the value of the illegal "industry" to go sky high.

... plus, they are a bunch of big meanies.

I think the war on drugs is an abysmal failure and bottomless money hole. Countless lives and dollars have been wasted, in an effort that has only exacerbated the problem, not helped at all. Yet there is now a multi-billion dollar industry around this, and that makes it virtually impossible to stop. There's money to be made here, thousands of jobs are involved, a major part of the economic engine of the United States. And now that the WOD has been tied to "security", due to concerns of the new double-speak word "Narco-terrorists", it's been firmly embedded into the system. We in Canada are complete fools for allowing our government to take us down the exact same road, with the DEA training squads coming north to help us set up our own little war, complete with US style surveillance, framing, sting operations and mega prisons. I support government regulation, that would be more like the Canadian style. It will never happen, until our friends to the south decide to let it go. And that's not likely, for above reasons. Just put some warning stickers on the drugs, as they do with smokes. Do it for alcohol too. It's not really a deterrent, just protection against liability.

But I think any "distrust" is not directed specifically towards everyday Americans one might meet in the street. To me distrusting the US of A would mean as a country, due to its foreign policies. Things like "Project for the new American century... A Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity". Although I don't know if that is a real or phoney document. Tell me it's not real.

Excellent point about the role models these types of people represent. It seems there is no honor amongst politicians, or thieves...

A brutal philosphy which many people around the world would totally disagree with. Most of them would be anti-American.

I certainly got a laugh out of that. Maybe she should take a hint, and stick to comedy...

< Insert justification for using weapons of mass destruction here > Kinda like how people might hate their boss, especially if he/she is the very "bossy" kind. My own "boss" is considered a buffoon, jerk, and self-serving asshole. People don't hate him automatically just because he's "the boss". no. It's the thinks he does, the privileges he gives himself such as taking trips to far away conferences in Europe or Australia, and at the same time denying the staff resources for training on new technologies, which is essential to our operations. I think what people hate the most is hypocrisy. Can't defend China, or Canada. in these regards. Just because your opponent is "bad", does not de fact make you "good". In a situation where practically none are "good". We primitive human beings have so so much to learn.

I'd expect that those countries that look at China as more favourable than the US are probably countries in Asia. People generally know when they are being screwed over financially, or lied to. People know some history, like using the atomic bomb is one of the most abhorrent acts ever committed. Not necessarily by its scale of death, but what it represents- massive wealth directed towards developing weapons of mass destruction. I think it's not specifically hatred of the US per se, but any country that seeks hegemony and becomes the dominant empire will be disliked.

In that case, send Mackay to Afghanistan to face charges, and do his jail time there.

Unless of course, they contract out the work to some company in CHINA. Do yo think that's absurd? Welcome to the economy of the 21st century.

Uncomfortable dynamic Since the summer, the administration has been facing an uncomfortable dynamic in the economy. The ranks of the jobless have been growing, while big financial firms that got taxpayer bailout money have been thriving. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34375497/ns/business-washington_post/ Exposes the purpose of the "bailout", as a free-for-all insurance plan for the bankers and rich, the premiums paid for by the taxpayer. Enjoy... don't forget to submit your taxes for 2009 on time, or you'll pay an additional penalty.

Well, so that there won't be a "cover up", and so that the rest of the world can see, whats going on here.

Personally, I prefer that this case be referred to the international courts, unlike what Layton has been saying.

I nominate him for next years nobel peace prize.

Yeah right. All sorts of royalty going there too. Lets hope it's for more than just the free caviar. Was reading that this event will produce an estimated 40,000 tons of greenhouse gases. Thats as much as the entire country of Switzerland in a year. It certainly undermines any perception of real concern or validity. I wonder if any of the big shots giving fancy speeches there will address this issue?

Yeah I know, that point was clear. But I doubt that it can ever happen, because people won't ALLOW it to happen. There's nice theories, and then there's human nature, as evidenced by several thousand years of history.

But for the people in the top 1%, what is there left to gain for them? They're already at the top, how much higher can we raise their standard of living? Not much. But clearly much more can be done for the poor and the middle class, which raises their standard of living to approach that of the rich. And they don't like that, you're encroaching on their territory. Those pristine beach resorts and fancy restaurants are no fun, when they're full of the clamouring noisy nouveau riche.

Excellent, M.Dancer, always with such valuable and positive contributions! But you have been reticent lately. Is this what it takes for you to come out

I said no, it does not change my thinking as yet. My thinking is this: Clearly there is something big going on if most of the ice around the world is melting faster than ever before. What's uncertain is the cause of this, whether it's man made or not. But since this involves a huge amount of oney, it's nearly impossible to know the truth, as various factions publish misinformation to further their agenda. I agree as I have worked directly with scientists for many years. It does not surprise me in the least that some scientists have manipulated the information. They are people just like anybody else, some are ethical in their work, others are corrupted. That is human nature. Sounds soviet. What next, a chivato on every corner watching you?