Sir Bandelot

Thats going to be hard to do, when the citizens themselves in the region and through to Pakistan, don't want what we the west have to offer them. Their religious leaders and politicians are telling them that western values and democracy are against what the Koran teaches. Seems to me that without winning the co-called battle of hearts and minds, we will not be able to finish the job. There's no way you can pound that into the people with fighting. Every colateral damage just feeds the ideological war used by the Taliban. Bombing them into the stone age does not work because, they are already in the stone age. The Afghanis will perservere, until we are tired of it and go home. Even here at home our mealy mouthed leaders are making noises of concession, appeasement, reconciliation. Sorry, army dude.

Thats right, I say that and I'm sure that any normal person would rather pay their taxes, than go to jail! Your circular logic gets boring, You don't respond to the issue, just make another obtuse one-liner.

Although there are many things I dislike about the conservative party, bringing in new blood is not a bad thing, per se. That way the old guard can be replaced, by a new old guard.

Oh I see, so we shouldn;t decriminalize it because it will lead to crime. Fine. By that logic lets not tax it, or anything. What are you smoking these days, by the way?

While I admire your choice of lifestyle and its remarkably similar to my own, this is not about morality. It's about criminality. But your tongue in cheek comments about who potheads are is actually a tired cliche. There are many potheads who live the same as you and me, having good educations, good jobs and devoting their time to family life, but instead of having a few drinks on Friday night they choose to light up. Thats where we draw the line. All other arguments about detrimental health effects due to over-indulgence applies to anything else where people may overindulge. Including food.

Here at last we see one of the benefits of multi-culturalism.

Exactly. Maybe if you dwell on it for a while you might think of something more useful to say

As usual, you try to obfuscate the meaning of a discussion with your pointless posts. Children have been used in warfare for centuries too. More commonly it is done by Guerilla warfare, less common by formal armies of a nation. "Throughout history and in many cultures, children have been extensively involved in military campaigns even when such practices were supposedly against cultural morals..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_soldiering

Once again people make the false assumption, that since we ourselves are naive, that our leaders or military are also naive. They should already know better. "today's treaties were not written at a time when we contemplated a blurring of the line between conventional soldiers of adult age, and civilians engaged in a combination of terrorist (attacks on civilians) and conventional war attacks against soldiers, let alone child terrorists or soldiers." Ever heard of Guerrilla Warfare? Probably... it's been around for a long time. "Guerrilla means small war, the diminutive of the Spanish word Guerra (war). The Spanish word derives from the Old High German word Werra and from the middle Dutch word warre; adopted by the Visigoths in A.D. 5th century Hispania. The use of the diminutive evokes the differences in number, scale, and scope between the guerrilla army and the formal, professional army of the state." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geurilla_warfare "Strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare tend to focus around the use of a small, mobile force competing against a large, unweildy one. The guerrilla focuses on organising in small units, dependent on the support of the local population. Tactically, the guerrilla army attacks its enemy in small, repetitive attacks from the opponents center of gravity with a view to reducing casualties and becoming an intensive, repetitive strain on the enemies resources, forcing an over-eager response which will both anger their own supporters and increase support for the guerrilla, thus forcing the enemy to withdraw." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_and_...errilla_warfare Now, I aint no self-proclaimed "military expert" but its the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of the tactics used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, conflict resolution should be demonstrated by the school and the school board, in terms of what to do when someone misbehaves. Both boys did the wrong thing. The school board responded by demonstrating the same thing, harsh punitive measures. The best way to deal with this sort of thing is to get the people both to understand that what they did was wrong, give them both a short suspension, and teach them that its time to move on. Not to drive a wedge between people but show that they still have an opportunity to continue normally. Thats education

Fact is, I support the decriminalization of all drugs, not only pot. Because drug use should be a health issue. I do not personally condone the use of drugs, which I see as detrimental to the person and those around them. However criminalization is even more harmful and devastating to the user and often to the family as well. The drug war is violent enough already, and shown to be grossly ineffective. People are protesting, people are writing to their members of parliament. Research is done to show the benign effects of the drug. Polls show the majority of the public supports decriminalization. Yet the prohibition continues. It is NOT due to lack of political effort on the part of activists. Or the fact that they're all stoned... the government refuses to listen. Because of treaty obligations, policies of the UN and World Health Organization, and a US drug war economy that runs to the tune of billions of dollars annually. That and the outright callous indifference of our leadership.

I reject these categorizations, I think its foolish for anyone to say they belong to this or that party. Loyalty to some political brand, means you are not thinking the issues through one by one, but your obligated to nod your head and bray when the party leader makes any utterance. I also dislike the "centralist" label as it sounds like relativism. In some cases I could be considered on the left and in others, on the right. My judgement is based on what promoted a balance of fairness in a given matter. In terms of laws its about a proportional response. And generally that large corporate structures (I don't mean only businesses when I say that) are generally de-humanizing and treat individuals like commodities. In some cases I believe, the rights of an individual outweigh the rights of the collective group. For people like the the political "party" system is inadequate. If I must be labelled call me a neo-cynicalist.

I was not there and nor were you I assume. But if we take the article at face value, yes I call it bullying when someone racially insults another person and then follows this with a punch to the face. At that point there is really no time to get out the dictionary for consultation. As the Sun article states, if we accept the hearsay it was not the asian boy who threw the first punch. Maybe in your view its acceptable to get punched in the face, if it only happens one time. I would not recommend waiting for the second one.

Yes indeed, Borg that is exactly what I was alluding to,

Much like there is also hard liquor, what it amounts to is that people generally smoke a smaller amount of it. And that is still beside the point. At yesterdays march in Toronto, as posted on the Toronto Star article shows that between 10-30 thousand people attended, smoked their modernized weed, and did not do any damage, get violent, or need police intervention. Try that with an equally huge crowd of rip roaring drunks. No need to try- ask cops about the average Saturday night. Police know this full well that pot smokers are generally non combative. Potheads are commonly used as "practice" by rookie cops to learn how to make arrests, for this very reason.

Even shiny and new they're still a prison. And lets not forget the stigma of a criminal conviction for possession, which socially amounts to a life sentence. Most employers won't hire you, even years later. Thats why I say the punishment is disproportionate to the crime.

The problem is we offer jail far more readily than we offer real meaningful help. Projects like Operation Insight, some of which run entirely without government funding are closed down by the government, while prisons continue to be built. Thats what the argument is really about- changing our priorities, where the money goes, to be able to offer real help.

The argument is not that no one obeys the law. The argument is that it is disproportionate to the threat that it represents, and that criminal charges should not be used where there is no great danger to society. My view of drug users, and I mean abusers, not users such as those who enjoy an occasional drink, is that this is a medical problem, not a criminal one. I would agree with decriminalization and court ordered treatment, as done sometimes with alcoholics. Although, its only done if the alcoholic commits some OTHER crime, which is linked to their abuse. NOT, by purely by the excessive consumption of alcohol itself. You can drink yourself to death, no one will stop you. Your comment about cocaine is ironic- I have read that in the US the courts are generally more lenient with cocaine addicts than they are with crack users or potheads. Cocaine being the far more expensive drug, already seems to be more tolerated in the courts. Ask yourself why that could be.

Oh great. By attacking the fundamentalists in their homeland, and doing so by "half-measures" we have angered the whole muslim populace, driving them right into the arms of the extremists. By putting arrogant rich peoples kids in charge of a situation that they are incapable of handling. In other words incompetence, stupidity, even criminal negligence has brought us to this. Against the better advice of those who are educated in the history of the region, we shall reap what they have sown. Pandora.

This only shows your personal disdain for others who make different choices than you. It has nothing to do with the argument for changes to law. But think about what else this story says- that 10 thousand gathered together to march and protest, and smoked their cannabis, yet no problems occurred. From the news reports not a single charge was laid, no one arrested. The benevolence of the drug and its users speaks for itself. Meanwhile, on any given Friday and Saturday night cops are very busy dealing with the boozers at bar fights, and the ones who beat their wives nd children under the influence of alcohol. There are people who have no soul. But that is seen as just a necessary evil that we accept, or we look to the individuals as who to blame, not questioning the substance. Ever have a drink yourself? I know you have... "May as well have big pharma drug them...I don't see the difference." Pharmaceuticals are made in a laboratory, and many of them are lethal, dangerous. Many have been killed by chemically synthesized drugs. And there is big, big money involved in the creation and distribution of pharmaceuticals. And wherever there's big money, theres greedy people who seek to exploit the pubic by profiteering. Rich ones who have many things to do, all primarily to serve themselves. People who have no soul...

The Toronto Sun article reads: "According to the accused boy and several friends, the other student called the Asian boy a "f...ing Chinese" and after a shoving match broke out, punched the Asian boy in the mouth, causing him to bleed. The Asian boy retaliated by punching the other boy and breaking his nose." Having gone to school I would say that the students who get high marks, especially very high marks are less likely to be troublemakers. But its a generalization, not always true. Seems to me by reading the articles that he refuted the claim that he was bullied, more than once. But it appears he was bullied, or racially insulted and taunted. What shall we call that. Yes its hearsay based on several students accounts, so what. We are not in a court of law... If you've ever had to deal with bing taunted, picked on or beaten up by bullies you'd know that political correctness, conflict resolution and being nice does not apply to the realities in the schoolyard. Some people cannot be stopped, except for by violence. Our society accepts the notion that some situations can't be resolved otherwise.

No, its the correct age for grade 9. I would say its to point out that he's a good student. The article also says he's never been on a fight before, so they are trying to show that he's not a typical troublemaker. If you read closely, it says that the other boy struck the asian boy first and cut his lip. At that point the asian boy HITS HIM BACK. If you've ever dealt with a bully who wants to hit you, you should know that once you decide to fight back you better not do it by half measures. If someone hits me I have the right to defend myself. Are you going to leave it up to the aggressor to decide how far it goes?

Who will pay for the Ukrainians? Or the Japanese, or the Vietnamese, or the Albanians, or

My guess is that the principal has a mental problem himself. As for the school board, who approved the writing of such a letter and then act like they were misunderstood, they are the real bullies. Typical that they back down when someone finally opposes them. I'm sure it happens all the time...

Well thats the best data they have. Thats how a democracy works. You get to have your say, and its the majority of respondents who decide. The ones who choose not to respond, either for or against, are not counted. You're not against democracy, are you?