[Canadian Human Rights Commission]

That's certainly not what I was implying.

Closer to stating outright, actually.

[Too many cops?]

The point is restitution for the victim. Yes, I would rather see the person who get hurt benefit with monetary compensation than see the criminal hurt. My concern is entirely with the victim. They got assaulted, raped, whatever - they deserve to have their situation improved. With the status quo they are not only first attacked by the criminal they are then attacked by the state which demands they pay taxation for the dubious honour of seeing their assailant chased down and punished.

If you don't want to suffer from indentured slavery, you shouldn't rob or beat people.

Unless you're rich...then you don't have to suffer as much.

It is an elitist view, a class-based view. By definition.

In my society there wouldn't be any rulers. Just people interacting voluntarily.

But you said there would be a death penalty and restitutive slavery.

Private courts would have a huge incentive to give anyone a fair shake, because fairness would be their stock in trade. There would be competition. The best judges, the one who most thoroughly analyze a situation would be the most sought after.

That's preposterous. The most sought-after judges would be those who provided the most amenable service to their (paying) clients for money.

People pay money to win; not to see "justice" done.

The ones who are corrupt, well no one would want to go them.

Everyone who knew such judges were favourable towards them and their cause would indeed very much want them. why wouldn't they?

[The "Fascist" fallacy]

Nobody's offered anything substantial, at all.

If none of the scholars (not all of whom are "leftwing") has offered anything substantive, then take them on.

They covered most of your points quite nicely, after all.

Like I said, I am echoing what plenty of intellectuals and scholars have explained regarding how fascism has much more in common with contemporary leftism than the contemporary right-wing. I am not the one who started this pathetic pissing contest to see who can compose a longer list of such people. It's irrelevant, anyways, as my arguments never hinge on agreement from some perceived authority. I never bring it up, because my level of argumentation is far beyond such pathetic appeals to authority.

You did bring it up, though, so I don't know where you're getting this. Even if you offer it as a resposne...it's still engaging in the "pissing contest," and it's still summoning authority. Hell, it's present in the first line of this passage of yours to which I'm at this moment responding!

At any rate, trying to parse the ideas of scholars and historians on the subject is not automatically a debate fallacy; no more than "I use my own common sense" is.

The fact remains, fascism being described as "extreme right-wing" is just another lie perpetrated by the leftists in academia, when any basic examination of the mechanisms of fascism instantly reveal it to be a harsher form of contemporary leftist politics (more and more government control masquerading as being in the best interests of "the people").

No. You favour your own theory of "conservatism" over reality itself.

To you, it makes no difference, none whatever, what conservatives do, or what they say; you determine what is "conservative" based on whetehr it aligns in action with what you think it should do.

You even blame leftists for bad rightwing behaviour, which is the height of irresponsibility.

In other words, there are no conservatives.

So you're defending some non-existent phantom.

[Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada]

Thank you for reminding us that we do not need courts, the police, the army...

I would have added shcools and roads (for starters) but i suspect you think that there is no justification for those being in public hands.

That's exactly what he thinks. He's a believer in anarcho-capitalism.

[Too many cops?]

First of all, it's impossible to predict exactly how society would organize itself upon voluntary and organic lines.

Fair enough, agreed.

Could private security agencies commit criminal actions? Certainly. Anyone can commit criminal actions. But you would have competing defence agencies. So if one security firm was ruthless and criminal, other security firms would be hired to defend individuals from this firm.

Hired by whom? What if they, too, behave in a violently criminal manner?

I'm not trying at all to be difficult, Zacahry; I honestly don't think you've thought through how this could work.

But there wouldn't really be "arrests" and "jails". If someone commits and assault or burgarly, they would have to pay back the victim

Says who? The private courts you've hired, who have every incentive to "believe you" because they're taking your money?

You're insisting on retaining existing problems...and then exacerbating them.

So if you steal $1000 you will have to pay back $3000. If you do not have the money you will be forced into indentured slavery with the victim receiving profits from your labour until they are paid back.

So now freedom is slavery, huh?

Just a short while ago, you were complaining about how the justice system is corrupted in part because those without money suffer in ways that those of means do not--using your personal experience as an example of this injustice.

Now you're saying it's fine; those with money, pay it back, and go on your merry way. Those without: slavery! In other words, stealing is a different crime for the rich than for the poor: the rich shouldn't have to suffer for their crimes to the extent that the poor do.

Your view here is absolutely, 100% elitist. Classist. It is an obscene disjunction of Power based purely on wealth, and zero on justice.

The rich will rule the Earth under your scenario. Through force.

You don't see the contradictions?

And one of the primary differences is that, under your scenario, we can't even vote for our rulers. They "earn" it through having money.

[Ron Paul in 2012]

Theres LOTS to not like about him. He would end public education, public healthcare, criminalize abortion in all cases, try to implement the gold standard. Hes also a little paranoid... I read a letter from him recently about how the UN is gonna take Americans guns away.

I find the leftwing support of Paul quite strange.

[Time to defund the CBC]

And as for sun tv, they go after the con goverment on alot of things.

Such as?

[Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada]

We live in a kleptocracy. Our political process has became a game of rent seeking behaviour, who can loot the most from whom.

Kleptocracy only means those in power stealing from everyone else.

Often it is used to describe the theft of money by the richest (who also have disproportionate power).

[McGuinty's policy platform]

Absolutely welfare should be wiped out immediately. If I could push a button and have it gone tomorrow I would. A lot of people use it to subsidize their alcohol and drug addictions. It's an impediment to living a healthy life. We are doing a great disservice to the taxpayer who's money we steal and the welfare bum who's parasitic lifestyle we encourage by keeping this program. But let me be clear - it is far, far more important to end corporate welfare, especially to the merchants of death, and welfare to politicians and their friends then it is to end welfare for the poor. But we should end it all, and we should end it immediately.

Yes, I understand that you are speaking from principle here, and would wish an end to upwards welfare as well as downwards welfare.

But my question still stands: never mind people using welfare for bad purposes or what have you; if you could push a button and end it immediately, could you not see some sudden, devastating and awful things occurring to a lot of people?

[Too many cops?]

Many criminals such as the police commit countless acts of violence and are never sentenced or arrested for their crimes.

But under your scenario, there would still be police: private security firms.

What's their incentive to not commit crimes?

And who would arrest and sentence them if (actually, when) they did so?

[McGuinty's policy platform]

Don't worry Bill, I'm sure when I am old and senility sets in I will share many of the same opinions you do.

Oh, Bill remains sharp enough, no worries. He also shows some compasison for people; and such compassionate tendencies could someday work in your favour, Zachary, if that sharpens its importance in your mind.

And Bill's right; even if the notion of eliminating welfare altogether is sound idea, it shouldn't ever be done immediately (your suggestion).

Some people will suffer unbelievable depredations. Why should anyone want that for them?

[Corporate tax cuts/breaks don't create jobs!]

A market based justice system would be subject to competition. Judge's stock in trade would be the fairness of their decisions.

And who determines this "fairness" and how? The Market????

There is no justice in our current court system. I once stood before a judge, 4 years ago, for the terrible crime of not showing up to probation meetings and missing a court date. The judge sentenced me to 30 days in jail, but before he did so he asked me if I could pay a fine. I couldn't. I had no money. I could have bought my way out of jail. You call that justice? The poor get no justice in government courts. How can you expect a government court to provide justice in a dispute between an individual and the government? When an organization has a monopoly on arbitrage they will use that monopoly to their own advantage.

I agree with our point about money; the poor are the primary victims of institutional injustices. (Not "the businessman," as you might otherwise believe.) If you can't pay the right fees, you go to jail while awaiting trial; if you have money, you do not. That's an injustice by definition, opposed to the very principles of same.

Further, the cliche about expensive lawyers versus state-paid defense lawyers is in fact generally true. That's buying jsutice...which you think should be more the case, not less!

(For example, what do you propose be done with defendants who have no money to pay lawyers?)

I don't see how a competitive, free market justice system (which you as of yet have declined to explain how it could possibly even begin to work) would solve this problem.

Why would it? It would have nothing to gain by solving the issue--and therefore, thanks to market principles, it could not in good faith attempt to solve it.

[Time to defund the CBC]

There's definitely a certain conspiratorial tone to all the frothing - usually coming from occupants of the pretty far right, libertarian types - about the CBC being a mouthpiece of The Government. And, like a lot of conspiracy theorists who're driven by emotion rather than fact-based logic, they end up throwing out such wild, unsupported claims that they end up contradicting themselves. They shout: "The CBC is institutionally lefty, endlessly broadcasting praises, subtle and overt, for Trudeau and multiculturalism!" and, at the same time, "the CBC is the propaganda outlet of The Government!" Yet, putting aside the fact that the government doesn't control the CBC beyond appointing its president, the party that presently forms the government is the Conservative Party of Canada. Is the Conservative Cabinet really commanding the CBC to spout ceaseless adulation for a former leader of the Liberal Party and his policies? What do the conspiracists think is Harper's reasoning for that?

Those are great points. If "the Government" is a bunch of lefties that hate cosnervatives and lionize Trudeau, then what....ah jeez; I cannot maintain this bizarre line of thinking. (That's to my credit, I believe! )

[Time to defund the CBC]

BM are you claiming that the CBC has no agenda and is truly an unbiased news source? I'd sorta need evidence to support that theory.

I don't imagine such a thing as an "unbiased news source" is possible within the human realm. So, no, not at all.

I'm just a messageboarder I really don't want to do research to prove my thesis here. Unless I perhaps get given a gumint grant.

Sure, and that's perfectly understandable. I don't blame anyone for that.

But when claims are made, asking for evidence is not wrong; it's not unreasonable.

And if one makes claims, but can't or won't back them up, then the claim remains bland and useless. That's ok too. But it is what it is.

[Perry in 2012?]

When one side tries to silence the other side it only reveals the total lack of confidence in the strength of its position.

If "Intelligent Design" is so ridiculous, the promoters of Evolution ONLY, should be comfortable enough knowing/guessing that the other side is so untenable that it would be laughed out of any and all classrooms.

So, why are they panicking?

They are laughing Intelligent Design out of the classrooms. That's because it's laughable.

So all is good, yes?

[Union Busting in Wisconsin]

If unions and unionists were decent and realistic enough to realize and acknowledge their own worth, they would know that their unreasonable demands are pricing jobs in America right into the Chinese market.

Union thugs keep on trying to convince their misguided members - who are paying dues to pay for the exotic and extravagant vacations of Girard, Trumka and the latter day re-incarnation of 'cement-block' Hoffa - that they are worth, with a grade 8 education the same as an engineer or a doctor or just about anyone with brains.

According to the many free marketeers among us, an employee is worth whatever he can get. Period.

That is the essence of "market value."

I'm told that a low-wage drone is "worth" ten dollars an hour...because that's what "the market" (ie the Human Resource Officers of whatever company we're talking about) allows them.

It works both ways.

[Thoughts Ten Years Later, September 11, 2001]

There is no need to "downplay" it at all...far larger and more significant than any NFL celebration is the continued support and economic livelyhoods perpetuated in such a system, even while protesting loudly as if to differentiate oneself from "warmongering rabble". The wars don't start themselves, and at their root we can find collective choices that guarantee more wars in the future.

Sure. I'm not diffeentiaitng myself from any rabble, warmongering or otherwise. I'm saying "politicized" doesn't mean "critical"; supportive ideas and celebrations are as politicized as are critical ones.

That's it.

[Thoughts Ten Years Later, September 11, 2001]

I think your piont was the US and UK actions and sanctions went above and beyond what is the norm,

They went above and beyond the very rules governing these very sanctions themselves.

causing undo hardship on the Iraqi people...That is the orginal piont is it not cause hardship to everyone in that country so that the leadership is presured by the people into submitting....Or i'm i missing something....

While we don't know what the criminals who intentionally caused the deaths of innumerable Iraqis were thinking, I too believe this is likely the answer: they wanted to increase the suffering of the people to compell them to overthrow their government.

Aside from the fact that this plan was a criminal failure, do you not suppsoe it raises questions about our grand humanitarianism and noble motives?

Knowing full well that very few if any sancations work, why waste the time with them, unless they are made more severe as to force change....

But they failed. They failed. That means all those people--possibly hundreds of thousands--were made to suffer and die for no good reason, except for the piolitical motives of the United States and the United Kingdom.

This is insupportable. I can't believe you're trying to justify it.

N

O, the US and UK were the primary enforcers of the sancations...piont of order so was Canada involved in the blockade....so it could not be that strong of an objection.

No, I take it in faith that Canada's stance was wishy-washy and sycophantic in the usual manner.

Why would they hurt Sadam, besides UN does not impose sanctions on a nation to hurt it's government leaders...they are meant to make the people suffer so they are forced to make change...Sadam was in the palaces drinking and eating the finest wines and foods from around the globe....no sanction would have worked again'st him unless it was tough enough....kind of like telling little billy go to your room...and he does not listen....and yet you know that already...but we blame the US for all those deaths caused by the sanctions....how much blame does Sadam and his government get....because i've yet to see many on this board drop any blame one other door steps just on the US...

Saddam should be blamed precisely for everything he did that was awful, and the list is very long.

The United States should be blamed precisely for everything it did that was awful.

What's the difficulty with this concept again?

The piont is to force the people to make change....you say needless suffering, as it did not have an effect on Sadam...perhaps not, but you know as well as i do that any UN sanction has about as much effect as me telling you to go to your room....

So your poin t is this: the UN Sanctions, to which the United States was principle architect, were inhernetly useless before they began (mayeb that's true, I don't know); so it's ok for the United Sattes to break all the rules, including thsoe it had helped set up themselves, specifically to make the people suffer more than they already had.

Further, it's not the US's fault that they behaved as they did; it's not as they're responsible for their own actions, or that anyone should criticize them for their behaviour.

Instead, we'll wag our fingers at the Official Enemy and say "the Devil made me do it."

That's an awesome get-out-of-jail-free card. They can do no wrong; everything is someone else's fault.

where can I get me some of that intrinsic justification?

[Thoughts Ten Years Later, September 11, 2001]

Maybe i'm not getting the same Sat coverage as you, but all the coverage i seen the entire day was about the Human aspect of it...in the west, in the middle east certain groups might see it as the day a blow was delivered to the US.....but here in America it is seen as mostly a day of rememberence like Nov 11.

Wrong. The NFL opener was about America's "brave response" to the crimes--which was specifically a point about military acton, which is inherently a politicized message. In case we missed the point, we watched soldiers on the field and revelled in a stealth bomber booming overhead. But no, that's just grieving and appreciating "the humanity."

The President proclaimed that the last ten years have shown that "we hold fast to our freedoms." He didn't elaborate, but no doubt drone killings of innocent civilians is part of all that liberty-lovin.'

The point is that even if you agree with him, it is a politicized message, evoking nationalism and fear of the official Enemy of the State.

The Vice-President boasted that al-qaeda had "awakened a sleeping giant"--meaning, of course, that always peaceful America suddenly rose up to fight the good fight. A view which only drooling ignoramuses would even countenance.

Writers and pundits, both liberal and conservative, have spewed out inumerable little pieces about glorious This versus Evil That.

The Left-wing Mother Jones magazine lectured us that this was "a day when Americans of all stripes should have been giving thanks to both President Bush and President Obama for doing whatever it is they do that has protected us from a tragic repeat of the events of September 11, 2001."

However, raise a voice of criticism of the most powerful people in the world, or the violent policies of the National sEcurity State...and suddenly one is being "too political."

Alrighty then.

And my point wasn't even about the exact content anyway--I am only stating that the entire day was deeply, nationalistically politicized.

Second, Nov.11 is a politicized day, as well.

Hell, I'm not critiquing this in and of itself; I'm objecting to the idea that fervent, militaristic nationalism is somehow "apolitical" and "about humanity," and that dissent from the conventions are somehow inappropriate.

I'm sure if we look back far enough in history one could say that about every nation. As for pretending how we behave there is a major difference between western countries and say middle eastern countries....in every aspect there is no comparison...

The West has been intentionally and explicitly involved in, among other things, state terrorism, mass murder, and the overthrowing of demcracies to place compliant dictators in their place.

I don't know why people throw tantrums when this is pointed out. The historical record is clear enough, if one wishes to look. Rather than get angry at the actual perpetrators, you get angry at those who point at them????

There is a clear separation...NATO is restricted by the genva convention, and how it conducts warfare, it controls the conduct of their soldiers or holds them responable.... i don't recall any NATO nation cutting off girls hands to make a statement, or intentionally targeting civilians, limiting who gets an education, etc etc the list is long....

and while it might seem to you the separation remains dubious, great pains go into limiting cilvilian cas, and deaths...to the piont NATO soldiers lives have been sacraficed to limit civilian cas or damage to non military targets...But as in any war, civilians normally pay a higher price than the army.

Yes, in actual and direct military intervention, some effort is made to reduce civilian casualties. (Why do people always say "every effort," as if such a presumption can be known, or is even likely to be true?) But in the broader scope of international policy, we will support the subversions of democracy (which is supposed to be something we hold sacred...what a joke!); we will even materially supply mass murderers for the exact purpose of carrying out their mass murders.

If you wish to downplay this, be my guest.

[Thoughts Ten Years Later, September 11, 2001]

The "day of remembrance" was our day, done our way. Just as other nations did it their way. Your 'approval' is totally unnecessary.

Since I'm neither asking for nor demanding that anyone, including yourself, wish for my approval, there is no issue, and the universe marches on as it will.

[Thoughts Ten Years Later, September 11, 2001]

bloodyminded

Question when has any UN sanction met it's primary goal, in your opinion are they effective?

I think that's an excellent question, and I have no idea. But that's totally beside any point I was making.

Strong objections...Since when does the US or the UK run anything in the UN, the head of the UN could have imposed or lifted any of those actions if it wanted to....thats the difference between actions and words....

The US and UK were primarily in charge of the sanctions. Hence the tootless objections by other member states (including a strong Canadian objection...formal and useless.

And while it is your opinion that what ever the Boss does i appluad , that BS.in the case of 9/11 yes i do agree, in the case of Iraq yes i do agree...

And in the case of murderous subversion of the sanctions you also agree. You disagree with virtually the entire world, including the Western democratic world...because if the US and UK did it, then Canada, France, russia, and everybody else must be wrong.

thats a load of crap....Sadam and the powers to be in Iraq could have prevented it all..

The sanctions didn't hurt Saddam. They strengthened his hold over his own suffering people, thanks to the way the humanitarian component was intentionally subverted by the two most influential member states. The US/UK could have prevenetd much suffering as well...and simply by adhering to the proper mandates of the imposed sancions, rather than breaking them.

....whats the piont of any sanctions if they are not to be enforced....what is the piont of any laws if they are not to be enforced....

Exactly. If the sanctions are to subverted, the rules broken, to cause more needless suffering among the Iraqi people...what's the point?

We haven't been told yet why US/UK officials behaved this way, so maybe you should ask them.

[Thoughts Ten Years Later, September 11, 2001]

Your piont of view...I'm sure those that those people who's lives are changed forever on 9/11 think differently, and to them i'm sure having the President of the US there personally involed in these rememberances is some what a comfort...[/quote\

Certainly, survivors of victims have a profoundly more profound and painful stake in the matters.

That has little to do with the overall day, which about American international politics (propaganda version), not about the very human aspect of it.

Your not telling everyone.... that western powers in Afghan and Iraq conflicts have targeted inocent cilians are you.....Or are you saying the intentional targeting of civilians and the accidental deaths of cilvilians are the same.....

I am saying that the policies of Western democracies, certainly including the U.S., and let's not forget our beloved Canada, have long been involved in overthrowing democracies, supporting terrorism, and other such direct contradictions of how we prtend we naturally behave.

Really...I agree with you, and why should i or for that matter anyone else not take issue with with what happen on 9/11, why should we not be as committed as they are to their total destruction as they are ours. After all it was them that took this fight to us was it not. What separates us and them is how we conduct ourselfs.

Then the separation remains dubious, on the international scale. Domestically, yes, matters are radically different.

[The Ultra rich getting richer]

Idea normally proposed? It's more of a historical fact, not a proposal.

I was attempting dry irony.

[Thoughts Ten Years Later, September 11, 2001]

If you had read Bin Ladins translated letter which explains why he attacked the US , he clearly mentions one of the reasons he attacked was the UN sanctions again'st Iraq, we can hardly blame the US for UN sanctions can we....

reasons

The US and UK fucked with the sanctions, illegally breaking the sanctions rules, primarily by holding back allowable items (including foodstuffs and medicines).

This was against the strong objections of other UN member states, including Canada, France, Russia, and dozens of others.

But the boss does what he likes...something you seem to applaud, in the usual formulation of servility to Great Power.

Many members of the Security Council have been sharply critical of these practices. In an April 20, 2000, meeting of the 661 Committee, one member after another challenged the legitimacy of the U.S. decisions to impede the humanitarian contracts. The problem had reached “a critical point,” said the Russian delegate; the number of holds was “excessive,” said the Canadian representative; the Tunisian delegate expressed concern over the scale of the holds. The British and American delegates justified their position.

.....

In 1991, a few months after the end of the war, the U.N. secretary general's envoy reported that Iraq was facing a crisis in the areas of food, water, sanitation, and health, as well as elsewhere in its entire infrastructure, and predicted an “imminent catastrophe, which could include epidemics and famine, if massive life-supporting needs are not rapidly met.” U.S. intelligence assessments took the same view. A Defense Department evaluation noted that “Degraded medical conditions in Iraq are primarily attributable to the breakdown of public services (water purification and distribution, preventive medicine, water disposal, health-care services, electricity, and transportation). . . . Hospital care is degraded by lack of running water and electricity.”

According to Pentagon officials, that was the intention. In a June 23, 1991, Washington Post article, Pentagon officials stated that Iraq's electrical grid had been targeted by bombing strikes in order to undermine the civilian economy. “People say, 'You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage,'” said one planning officer at the Pentagon. “Well, what were we trying to do with sanctions-help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of the sanctions.”

......

Nearly everything for Iraq's entire infrastructure—electricity, roads, telephones, water treatment—as well as much of the equipment and supplies related to food and medicine has been subject to Security Council review. In practice, this has meant that the United States and Britain subjected hundreds of contracts to elaborate scrutiny, without the involvement of any other country on the council; and after that scrutiny, the United States, only occasionally seconded by Britain, consistently blocked or delayed hundreds of humanitarian contracts.

In response to U.S. demands, the U.N. worked with suppliers to provide the United States with detailed information about the goods and how they would be used, and repeatedly expanded its monitoring system, tracking each item from contracting through delivery and installation, ensuring that the imports are used for legitimate civilian purposes. Despite all these measures, U.S. holds actually increased. In September 2001 nearly one third of water and sanitation and one quarter of electricity and educational—supply contracts were on hold. Between the springs of 2000 and 2002, for example, holds on humanitarian goods tripled.

Among the goods that the United States blocked last winter: dialysis, dental, and fire—fighting equipment, water tankers, milk and yogurt production equipment, printing equipment for schools. The United States even blocked a contract for agricultural—bagging equipment, insisting that the U.N. first obtain documentation to “confirm that the 'manual' placement of bags around filling spouts is indeed a person placing the bag on the spout.”

......

In the late 1980s the mortality rate for Iraqi children under five years old was about fifty per thousand. By 1994 it had nearly doubled, to just under ninety. By 1999 it had increased again, this time to nearly 130; that is, 13 percent of all Iraqi children were dead before their fifth birthday. For the most part, they die as a direct or indirect result of contaminated water.

The United States anticipated the collapse of the Iraqi water system early on. In January 1991, shortly before the Persian Gulf War began and six months into the sanctions, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency projected that, under the embargo, Iraq's ability to provide clean drinking water would collapse within six months. Chemicals for water treatment, the agency noted, “are depleted or nearing depletion,” chlorine supplies were “critically low,” the main chlorine-production plants had been shut down, and industries such as pharmaceuticals and food processing were already becoming incapacitated. “Unless the water is purified with chlorine,” the agency concluded, “epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur.”

All of this indeed came to pass. And got worse. Yet U.S. policy on water-supply contracts remained as aggressive as ever. For every such contract unblocked in August 2001, for example, three new ones were put on hold. A 2001 UNICEF report to the Security Council found that access to potable water for the Iraqi population had not improved much under the Oil for Food Programme, and specifically cited the half a billion dollars of water- and sanitation-supply contracts then blocked—one third of all submitted. UNICEF reported that up to 40 percent of the purified water run through pipes is contaminated or lost through leakage. Yet the United States blocked or delayed contracts for water pipes, and for the bulldozers and earth-moving equipment necessary to install them. And despite approving the dangerous dual-use chlorine, the United States blocked the safety equipment necessary to handle the substance—not only for Iraqis but for U.N. employees charged with chlorine monitoring there.

http://harpers.org/archive/2002/11/0079384

Your documented Iraqi civilian death count is also flawed as it counts all deaths occured during the conflict including those inflicted by the insurgents...you can't hold the coalition responsable for their enemies actions....

All deaths were the consequences of the invasion, and were predictable...in fact, predicted.

From the Nuremberg Trials:

...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole

[Canadian Human Rights Commission]

I can't stand this whining from people like yourself who pretend to bear the mantle for these allegedly disadvantaged groups. This country is as free and equal as it gets. I can't stand listening to these lies about a racist, sexist, and intolerant Canada where these groups you listed off are somehow unfairly treated in our society. It's pure shit. I lived in Canada virtually my whole life, and the only discrimination I experienced was when I was assaulted THREE SEPARATE TIMES by Muslim Arabs who knew I was Jewish. If anything, I saw pathetic and sickening pandering from the "middle class white men" crowd towards certain minorities and groups.

Ah!...so there really are victimized and disadvantaged groups. Or, to be precise: there's one.