Army Guy

I hope he does commit to it, Not only will it be a great for moral of the troops, but he'll be able to see for himself the problems in Afgan and perhaps that will reflect in future decisions of Aid packages, re-constrution measures or even military equipment needed for the job. How that equates into war mongering i don't know. Whats wrong with shaking a few soldiers hands, and allow them to meet the man that holds thier furture in his hands. Or for that matter give him a better picture of whats going on in Afgan. Thats not war mongering just showing good leadership. As for security, aside from his JTF escort he'll have a good portion of those 2200 armed military personal securing the area, he'll be safer there than in is own living room. But then again nothing is 100 % secure is it.

Another view. My Webpage And who said there is no profit to be made from cartons. My Webpage

Betsy: No, they are not claiming to talk for the whole army, just themselfs. i did post the links in previous posts, but if your having troubles with the link feature here is the whole story below. I'm sure if you really tried you could find more. Story number one. RUSSELL D STORRING: Canadian soldiers and the cartoon controversy CBC News Viewpoint | February 14, 2006 | More from Russell D. Storring -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Russell Storring is a Master Corporal with the Canadian Army, and has been a signals operator for the 14 years he has been in the military. He recently returned from his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, having served there previously in 2003, and with the UN in Rwanda in 1994. His columns give a first-person account from the field and the life of a soldier. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like many people in Canada and around the world, I have watched in horror and disbelief as Islamic riots are waged over the printing of cartoons of Muhammad. From Europe to the Middle East, Africa to Indonesia, thousands of protests have been staged; many becoming violent as Muslims denounce what they believe is the defamation of their Prophet Muhammad. In Afghanistan, upwards of ten people have been killed with scores injured (including NATO soldiers), as police battle unruly crowds in an effort to protect foreign embassies, personnel and NATO bases. The Taliban have gone so far as to place bounties of gold on the heads of the cartoonists and NATO soldiers from Denmark, Norway and Germany -- those they consider the chief offenders in this controversy. Having served two tours of duty in Afghanistan with the military, I have seen first hand how people often do not actually associate a flag with a nation. Rather, all western soldiers are viewed as exactly that – "western soldiers." Sure, once people had an opportunity to talk to us, they recognized that we were Canadian -- but the difference might be moot in a frenzied moment. When someone is looking for a target to hit, whether with an improvised explosive device, a suicide bomb, or something as simple as a well-aimed rock, they are looking for a "western soldier." Whoever generally matches their target ends up their prey. I had hoped that Canadians serving overseas would avoid most of the brunt of this cartoon controversy as mainstream Canadian media opted not to run the controversial cartoons. Everyday life can often be risky enough for our soldiers (at least in Afghanistan). I followed the flow of comments about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and how western countries shouldn't be afraid of protesting or rioting Muslims; that it's our inherent right to print those cartoons. But I couldn't help noting that this slew of "freedoms" come from people who take for granted what our fathers and grandfathers paid for in blood, and what our own soldiers pay for today. Freedoms are something many people here in Canada and around the world take for granted; the minute someone perceives that those freedoms are being infringed upon, a whole movement begins that can quickly snowball out of control. I am a soldier that believes deeply in freedom, and by virtue of service for my country I have and am willing to put my life on the line for what my country believes in. With freedom of anything comes the responsibility to make sound decisions and common-sense choices. Deciding to not print those controversial cartoons has nothing to do with being cowed by fear of Islamic retribution; it has everything to do with respecting another person's beliefs and the common sense that Canadians have always been known for around the world. When we as soldiers move into another country, whether to keep or enforce the peace, we respect the fact that the host country is unique in its beliefs and culture. We try to leave the country (at some point) with minimal cultural impact. We respect their holidays and events; we go so far as to try not to eat or drink in front of Muslims during Ramadan out of respect for their culture, even while in our own camp. This has nothing to do with fear of offending them, but has to do with respect and our ability to live in a multi-cultural environment -- whether overseas or here in Canada. Some publishers here in Canada have used their "freedoms" to inflame an already volatile situation in order, they say, to make a point. If now, like so many European countries, our troops become targets over what boils down to so-called freedoms of press or expression, where will be the position of those Canadian publishers then? If one of our troops is killed as a target of "blasphemy," I highly doubt those publishers will thank the soldier's family for allowing their magazine to express their belief. Canada has always been a country of tolerance, a country of compassion and a country of moral standards. Now we risk all that for the sake of a few cartoons. I have my doubts that any media organization here in Canada would run a series of anti-Catholic cartoons that the Vatican felt were strongly offensive. By infringing on other people's freedoms of belief, religion or thought, as an expression of our own freedoms -- what have we accomplished? I truly hope that this isn't the kind of society that we are becoming. Story number two. Making it worse -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I completed a seven-month tour of duty in Afghanistan and we in the Western world are not well liked there. We are in enough danger as it is, and this little publicity stunt by the Western Standard is probably going to get more of our soldiers killed. The current threats our troops face on a daily basis in the new region, which is now in the middle of the Taliban and al-Qaeda resistance, is already enough risk without adding more fuel to the fire. If publisher Ezra Levant is so brave to publish the cartoons, why does he now need personal security? If this is just freedom of expression, why is he scared? I hope his stunt was worth it. Sgt. Stephen Piccolo, Edmonton How you got that out of what i said i don't know. But heres the mental picture i got some soldier being pulled out of a burning veh because some radical muslim decided to put an RPG round into the side of it. Because he's be inflamed by some cartoon. I'm sure his buddie who his busy stuffing his best friends guts back in his belly will feel better that you and the media are keeping up the fight back home. when it all started over some stupid cartoon. Here is a few links below, maybe it will paint another picture other than the one of a soldier pissing his pants. there are dozens more if you want them. My Webpage My Webpage My Webpage My Webpage

Argus: You have a piont, i'll give you that one, as i don't have that info and my comment was base on opinion. but it works both ways you've said they the media was united and standing -up for our freedom of speech, when in fact not every media outlet in Europe or for that matter in Denmark published those cartoons, so they are not united and not all of them believe it's a freedom of speech issue. At no time did have i said that any of our freedoms are not worth fighting over or preserving. And if you actually read the above quote it clearly suggests that our soldiers are not in Afgan for the money but because they believe in freedom and what they are doing in Afgan. Why don't you read those links i gave you they were written by soldiers who don't think that this "so called errosion of our freedoms" as you have suggested are worth the risk as they don't see it as a errosion but a media stunt to earn more dollars. As for me not thinking our freedoms are worth a nickel, thats your opinion. I have served this country for 26 years and am still serving ,I've have been on 8 tours of world shitholes. I've seen first hand the aftermath of caused by men fighting over freedoms.(real problems) So when i say that one Candian soldiers life is worth more than one damn cartoon or what some precieve as an errosion of our freedom of speech i think i know what i'm talking about. But hey thats my opinion, and thier like A$$holes everyone has got one. QUOTE(Army Guy @ Feb 22 2006, 11:49 AM) QUOTE I disagree that the European newspapers which published the cartoons were doing so in order to sell newspapers. I don't see the likelihood of major profits in this, and if there were, I think more would have done so. No, I believe that those few media outlets which saw the controversy, saw the attacks on the Danes, honestly wanted to stand up for freedom of the press, in solidarity with the Danes, and tell the Muslims that here in the West we believe in freedom of speech - so if you're going to attack the Danes, you're going to have to attack us all. The media is a business, like any business it is driven by profit. not some noble idea of keeping us informed, that is a by product. If the news does not sell papers it's not going to recieve the same coverage. That is too cheap and pat an answer. Yes, the media is a business. That does not mean that no one involved thinks of it as more than just a profit generating enterprise. Perhaps journalists and editors do not always do enough to live up to it, but there is a concept of journalistic bravery, integrity and freedom which many of them ascribe to. Is it a cheap and pat answer, i will agree that there are editors and journalist that do live up to those ideals you have discribe. and perhaps i've become jaded with my experiances with journalist in a war zone, who's only interest was getting the graphic story or pictures that sells papers. they want to see bodies not the re building of schools or hospitals. So common sense and respect play no role in thier decision, Just fear.

Argus: Actually, it is a very normal response to push back when you're being bullied So you agree that it is OK to say or print something offensive to someone or group when ever you want but when they throw a trantrum or take action again'st you, "you call them a bully." and you would consider it a normal response to push back. Sounds like something kids do on the play ground. It's not the actions of a grown-up or for that matter a media outlet who should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us normal citizens. I'm i really being self- righteous when i and other soldiers "you know the group of large armed men" have said that they do not appriaciate the added dangers that we will have to face because of some stupid cartoon. printed to provoke a response. Because the some of the media has not shown alittle common sense and respect. These are the same men and women who hold the line and defend your freedom of rights daily. And when these radical muslims actually do restrict any of your freedoms they will gladly take the fight to them no questions asked. Yes they were dying well before the cartoon broke out, but all those riots,killings that are happening right now that can be directly linked to the publishing of these cartoons directly have an impact on our Soldiers that are serving in Afgan right now. So ask a soldier serving over there now does he think all this grief is worth a few cartoons so some dick head can put a few more dollars in his pocket. We don't need to unnessicarily give these crack head radical muslims any more of an excuses to kill than they already have. What have these media god's done except re-publish the same cartoons for profits. Ya that 's it i've had enough of this shit re-publish the cartoons that will show them we are serious No i'm not frightened, more like very concerned that a Canadian soldier may have to pay with his life, because some stupid cartoon enraged some radical muslim, and i don't think that price would be worth a cartoon, just so we could prove a piont.

Betsy: So you agree that it is OK to say or print something offensive to someone or group when ever you want but when they throw a trantrum or take action again'st you, "you call them a bully." and you would consider it a normal response to push back. Sounds like something kids do on the play ground. It's not the actions of a grown-up or for that matter a media outlet who should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us normal citizens. No actually my piont was that those media outlets were not standing -up for our rights, they were not protecting our freedom of speech or some other noble deed. They did what they did because of the bottom line "money". and strung along their readers by hiding behind Our freedom of speech. Thats the real beauty about free enterprise is'nt it. it's all about the money not about what is right or wrong. Yes they were dying well before the cartoon broke out, but all those riots,killings that are happening right now that can be directly linked to the publishing of these cartoons directly have an impact on our Soldiers that are serving in Afgan right now. So ask a soldier serving over there now does he think all this grief is worth a few cartoons so some dick head can put a few more dollars in his pocket. We don't need to unnessicarily give these crack head radical muslims any more of an excuses to kill than they already have. What have these media god's done except re-publish the same cartoons for profits. Ya that 's it i've had enough of this shit re-publish the cartoons that will show them we are serious. Why don't you read a few comments made by soldiers, the same soldiers that have sacraficed so much for those freedoms you only talk about. These are the thoughts of a few of those that are serving over there now or who have recently returned from Afgan. None of our current freedoms are in danger or being dismantled. My Webpage My Webpage You have still not answer the question do you think they are news worthy, or where they printed to provoke a group. Can anyone out there educate me on why these cartoons are news worthy when they were first printed , or do you think they were printed to provoke a response.

Betsy: And ? have you been following along here, Argus piont was that he seen it as the Media standing-up in solidarity for thiers and ours, freedom of speech, bullshit.... they did it for profit. What is not dollar driven, The soldiers that are actually standing the line, overseas right now are not dollar driven "because if you think the pay is worth plus 45 degrees in an hostile enviroment your wrong." The same soldiers who's lives have been put in greater danger because some dick head decisded he and his paper could make a few dollars. Lets not forget the every day average citizen who may be taken hostage or worse killed so that some radical may prove his piont. All this over a stupid carton is it worth it. Tell us all how you have suffered. tell us how anyone in Canada has suffered. Perhaps you can educate me , explain to me how those cartoons are news worthy, perhaps you can explain to me what was the piont in printing them if not to provoke the muslims. I don't recall speaking for you,or deciding anything for you, or for that matter making any judgements for you. I have been quoted in saying most normal Canadians perhaps you don't fit into that catagory. But then again freedom of speech is only good if we all comply to your way of thinking. That we can insult anyone ,anytime because it's falls under our freedom of speech. You can call them what ever you want, however as i pionted out a million times that your freedom speech has limitations. and yes there are laws governing what you can't say, I've mentioned before that some of those laws are covered under the harrasment laws which have a broad spectrum of Interputation "harrassment is anything that one individual percieves to be offensive, degrading,etc etc " it does not have to be directed at you, it could be part of a privite conversation you are not meant to hear. all that is need is for that on individual to say i find that offensive and you may find yourself in court. I did not write the laws or regulations i just passed on that info.

Argus: The media is a business, like any business it is driven by profit. not some noble idea of keeping us informed, that is a by product. If the news does not sell papers it's not going to recieve the same coverage. By using your logic if all europe had seen it as you do then why did they not all stand-up in solidarity, Why did'nt the european union stand-up and say enough is enough. because they are not united on this issue. First off it was a cartoon, it had nothing to do with presenting a news worthy story, it's intention was to make fun of or show in a bad light a certain ethinic group. You've been defending your right to insult someone, or group when ever you want, and declaring your justified under freedom of speech. If i as an individual say or do something that is offensive to someone or some group and that person or group of people inform me that it is offensive a "normal" person would chalk that up to a learning experiance and not repeat it. IE telling ethinic jokes in front of that ethinic group, either you did not know it was offensive or you are looking to provoke something. Are you telling me that the media are not capable of express or reporting news without being offensive. Yes we are human and make mistakes or use bad judgement, we admit that and carry on with our lives. Most normal people do not continue to be offensive unless they are looking to provoke a response. There is a big difference between calmly discussing things of substance or trying to make a piont through insults. Because we both know that in this country we are capable of sitting down and discussing almost any topic without being offensive towards both sides. Would we be able to have the same conversation if a news paper depicted a cartoon depicting naked gay man bent over a table with a wedding gown on and another gay man jamming him up the arse with a tuxedo on.

I've said in previous posts that i am not making excuses for the muslims actions, and like you agree that they have gone way overboard. However, the danes Muslim community have told them at the very start of this chain of events that they find these cartoons offensive, (this is where it should have stopped) that would have been the common sense thing to do. But that is not what happens because it does not sell papers. Thats not what i'm getting from some of the remarks. You mean the same way you would react to a total stranger commenting on your wifes chest, or some other remark that you find extremely offensive. who are we to say how they should react, when we don't know just how offensive the remark is to them. We have already proven that we as Canadians can and will react to remarks we find offensive perhaps not burning down buildings or death threats but exchange physical blows with those responsable. It's easy for us to sit in our easy chairs and comment on our freedoms and to preach to those that we think are not acting the way we want them to. And then tell them in the same breath i can make any comments i'd like because it's my right, and if you don't like it F--k you. and then to think we are not escalating the whole problem. I think respect is a two way street, and if we want to sit in our chairs and pass judgement on others then we should be setting the example for them to follow. Not telling them it's my right to insult you, when i want , however i want. Shut the f--k -up. Because that is what we have done, but will it solve anything. Will it bring the world closer to being able to function the way we want them to. or is it only going to escalate things.

Argus: perhaps i am confused, I will agree with you the "first time the cartoon appeared" it could have been incidental, and perhaps they did not know it was offensive( Unlikely,but for sake of augument) after the cartoon was shown for the first time the muslim community in europe had told the media that it was offensive to thier culture. ( My piont is that this is when the publishing of these cartoons should have stopped, once it is found it is offensive) But that does not sell papers, they continued to publish the cartoons, quoting it was thier right under freedom of speach. The continues publishing of these cartoons were deliberate and understandably offensive conduct directed at specific group within thier communities. Because it may not be offensive to me or you does not mean it may not be offensive to others, and they do see it as a challenge that will incite a violent reaction. As we have already seen on the media. It's aimed at no one Give me a break, what group of people do you think it was aimed at, what ethinic group first poped into your mind. OK i agree, but what is your piont one can use common sense and respect at the bar, but not on the internet or in this case the media because you fell safe from physical violence. Nobody is saying "we must obey" anything it is after all our freedom of speach, what I'm saying is that freedom has limitations and in using that freedom wantonly there are consquences. I don't see the big deal here we as Canadians use common sense and respect when we deal with different minorities in our every day lives, why should we then not make our media do the same. Do they have different rights and freedoms than we do. Or are you saying that it is impossiable to report on world affairs without using common sense and respect. and what does the showing of cartoons have to do with the reporting of the news, other than to poke fun at an ethinic group. This is not about freedom of speech, it's about selling news papers, and headlines...Since when does the Media care about your freedoms. for them It's all about money it always has been... Freedom of speech does not allow you to say what ever you want, when you want without consquences . and if you don't like that: tough.. Yes it is, for good reason be it censorship in the media or self censorship it's here and has been forever, and is not likely to go anytime soon.

I think we have blown this all out of proportion. And we are using arguments that really don't apply. The press are claiming that thier freedom of speach is being curtailed. When in fact it is not being curtailed but they are finding out it has limitations. The same limitations that normal every day Canadians use everyday. Like walking down a crowded mall a commenting on every womens Ass or breast out loud , or from making racist remarks, or just using profanity around a crowd of elderly women. Millions of muslims have already said it is insulting to them and thier religion that much we know already thru thier actions or thier media. (thier actions being right or wrong here are not the piont) the piont being we already know they find it insulting. Again MOST normal Canadians don't continue to insult someone once they find out the remark is insulting I said most... There are those that say" i like to see them to make up my own mind", "WHY" is my question to them, do you have to decide anything when millions have already said it's insulting to thier culture. do we continue to insult them until everyone in the globe gets to see these stupid cartoons. so that they can make -up thier own minds. Give me a break.... If i told you SHIT stinks do you actually have to bend down a take a whiff, "YUP" shit stinks, i guess you were right. or poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick hurts. This whole thing is not about stomping on our freedom of speach because of threats or actions that the muslims are taking. It was about the media using good judgement in the first place. again common sense and respecting other races or culture. I find it at little ironic that europe has brought to court a man whom was a Pro Nazi whom was expressing is own opinions on the holocaust. Expressing his freedoms of speach so he says . And yet thier media continue to publish these cartoons knowing full well it provokes them (muslims) into violence. My Webpage Do we continue to provoke them until something stupid happens and a conflict breaks out. When do we stop. where do we draw the line. It's not about us standing the line flexing our muscles "don't F--k with our freedom of speach". And it's not about "let everyone see them and judge for themselfs" it's about showing respect and using common sense.

What i find impossiable to imagine is how could any sub dept spend 1 bil let alone 4 bil dollars, they have no major equipment to purchase. If what FTA is saying is true that security is the issue could the goverment not have purchase a wpns locker for each gun owner for that amount of money. Are they still hiring because they must be paying pretty good.

kimmy: I don't see it as protecting anyone, i see it as showing respect and using common sense. We already know what thier (muslims) reaction is going to be, they have already told us it is offensive. This situation could be compared to calling a African American the N word to thier face, we know already it is an offensive remark and most people refrain from using it because of respect, or common sense. Not all jews or christians can handle this stuff, as history will show us. It's not about protecting anyone it's about showing respect and using our common sense. Actually it is a right, it is a form of harassment and the federal government definition for harassment is what ever an individual perceices to be offensive. Which as you can see by the definition can encompass just about anything. I can't speak for any other Goverment dept, but here in the military it has a major impact to the piont they have manitory harassment, ethics, lectures for all personal both military and civilian, and a 2 week course for harassment advisors. Again as i stated before it is a right, however i will agree with you the news should be covered, but it should be done with common sense and respect. And that can be done with out being offensive. You make it sound like we can't cover the news with out being offensive, i think that was already proven with the Canadain media coverage of the cartoons. or do we really need to see them, do we need to see beheadings, or bannana stuck in an anus to actually get the real feel of the news. or can we use common sense and respect and still get our piont across.

I don't know if this was intended for me or not. But i'll respond anyways. I think that the Canadian muslims are handling this subject in a Canadian way. The way that most Canadians would handle it. They have told us that they find the cartoons offensive and the canadian media with a few exceptions have listened and respected thier rights as Canadians and have not printed the cartoons. How does this infringe on our freedom of speech. My piont here is that this is not about freedom of speech but respecting another culture. they have let us know that they have crossed the line...(be it thru violence or not they have made it clear that it is offensive) It is our turn to say OK ,sorry won't happen again...but that is not happening because it does not sell papers It's not about provoking the muslims but doing what is right.

Betsy: Has your freedom of speech been surpressed here in Canada. NO, it has not, your freedoms and rights stop at the borders. you do not have the same freedoms that you enjoy here in Canada, in say Afgan, Iraq, or any where else. you may think so but they do not. Are thier actions having a effect on your freedom of speech here in Canada. "None that i'm aware of". In the situation i gave you on another post you said both parties were wrong, one more than the other ,but both were wrong. Why can't the media admit that they are sorry that the cartoons were found to be offensive and no offense was meant. and let the issue fad away. It is what most grown-ups do when in that situation. But the media has not shown the world that they are grown-up and continue to re-print these cartoons insiting more violence, because that sells more papers, this has stopped being about freedom of speech long ago and now is about profits. What does that have to do with freedoms of speech, nothing...I'm not making excuses for any of the violence that the muslims have done nor trying to justify it...My piont here is the media is hidding behind freedoms of speech ,to cover-up thier part in all this. there the ones pulling the strings to sell more news papers. It has got nothing to do with Freedom of speech. What credibility have we lost, it was reported , the public is informed , they have done their jobs. If anything they have gained credibility by not printing something that another culture finds offensive.

fixer1 My piont here is that my common sense tells me that by me exericising my freedoms of speech do have consquences and can draw a violent reaction. i knew all that before the remarks were said, but said them anyways and yet now i'm hiding being my freedom of speech to prove i'm justified in what i said. that i have the right to freedom of speech and can say what ever comes to mind regardless of consquences or outcome. Most grown-ups know the limitations to thier freedoms and exericise them accordingly, this was not the case with the media.

I agree with Black dog this issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech, Here in Canada it is now being used for profit and recongition and to provoke futher action,thats it. We do this everday, which is why we use common sense when using our freedom of speech. Tell an over wieght women She's a cow, have a complete stranger comment on your wife or girlfriends breasts while your standing next to her. These examples would be an irresponsible use of my freedoms of speech, because they would proably provoke a violent response either verbal or punch in the face. But then again i knew that before hand, what the proable outcome would be. So while i'm wiping the blood from my nose and watching you being arrested for assualt ,who's right here Me for exericising my freedom of speech and not exericising common sense or you for finding the comment offensive and punching me in the face.

Betsy: Yes we do have to be viligant in protecting these freedoms, But in using of freedoms we must use common sense, and to use those freedoms as there were intended to be used. These freedoms does not give us the right to say or print what ever we like. Perhaps you can explain what was gained by printing these cartoons? What have most Canadian media outlets lost from not printing them ? I'm well aware of the sacrifice that our nations soldiers have made to ensure our freedoms, as i am one. My piont is that those freedoms are not being used as they were intended to be used, and there are limitations to all our freedoms.

We in Canada are among the many countries that have more freedoms than most, those freedoms should be used as they were intended, and should be used with caution and common sense. They do not give us the right to insult, mock, make racist comments etc. While we are here in Canada protected under the umbrella of all our rights and freedoms we must remain viligant on how we use our freedoms. A soldiers opinon.

This soldier has sworn and signed alligance to serve his country both home and abroad. No soldier has the right to decide which war or conflict they will serve in. This contract is no different than any other contract signed by any individual and it must be upheld in a court of law.. And as explained before He and the others that are in the same situation are Cowards. and should be returned to the US for what ever punishment they deserve. His claim that he will be forced to commit crimes/ kill innocent people is utterly bullshit...Nobody can make a soldier kill or for that matter fire a wpn on the battlefield. If he's that concerned he could be a medical assistantant or strecher bearer You don't have to pull the trigger but you have to atleast show-up. By not doing so he forces another individual to serve in his place.

jafridi: Let's not assume but say it is fact for those 191 who signed and ratified that code of conduct. No the UN did not authorize the invasion, in fact if the UN had it's way we would still be debating on what to do with Sadam and his merry band of killers, other examples are Rwanda the UN refused to act and thousand died. there are many more examples in history of the UN's inability to take approiate action when needed. So yes i will agree with your quote " In short, the UN has lost its relevance and moral authority." But does this now mean that every decission they have made is irrelevant, we should throw in the towel and have nations act as they please. NO i think not, the basic rules need to be follow if we are to co exist with other. Most will agree that most of the excuses for the Iraqi invasion were proven to be false,and did not justify the invasion. However those same people will also agree that something had to be done about the Sadam regime and would not discount miltary action.. Are you saying that the removal of Sadam and his band of killers is a crime, and that the world would be a better place with him still in power ? No it would have been a crime to leave him there in power to slaughter thousands more in his quest for more power. So now that we have thrown out the international code of conduct ,what instrument do we use to conduct our selfs. The bible, perhaps the Koran, history has already shown us what happens when nations strictly conduct themselfs by these sources. In fact history is still showing us. Of course you have prove of this, why not take it to the RCMP or the press, i'm sure that those that voted for him including myself would be very interested. To find out that our present government was bankrolled by the US neocon support. So the rest of the OIL producing nations are gaining nothing, In fact i would say that it would be in thier interest if the unstabilty in Iraq continued. And as far as the US defense industry being the only benifactor is false as well, Russia and china are making tidy little profits of this war as well. Atleast they have contributed something to the reconstruction of Iraq, while Canada has provided cash it could be doing alot more. Your wrong about thier reconstruction potential anything that is done to improve one iraqi's quality of life is worth the effort. Our reconstuction teams in Afgan also need force protection, and arial support but it does not stop them from going out every day to reconstruct something making small steps towards a better future. It is easy to pin the blame of all those deaths on the Allied action, to wipe clean the insurgents hands as they were just defending thier country, or fulfilling a religious need. It's easy to blame the white faces in the crowd for the deaths of thier families. Because this is what the insurgents tell them what has happened or what is being taught in school, or at religious services. The insurgents know this and use this as a weapon. Yes, get out run and hide ,stick our heads back in the sand, let the insurgents play the bongo's on our lilly white arses. Does anyone actually think that the Insurgents would stop the fighting, or that they would allow the current population to govern themselfs with free elections, better human rights if the coalition pulled out. If that was the case are we not fighting for the same thing...Where do you see Iraq in 5 years time if the coalition left today? do you see Iraq in peace with it self and the world and rebuilding it's nation or do you see another Sadam a Muslim extremist in power, rebuilding it's armies to once again rain terror were they see fit. If the Iraqi people are anything like the Afgan people all they want is peace, to be able to live life as it was intended. If the coalition was to depart tommorrow civil war would tear that country apart, and peace would be just another pipe dream. And the deaths would continue.

Jafridi: Before the UN the League of nations, after the UN was formed the United nations general assembly. of which over 191 nations are involved. Just how is that "the World" is being held hostage to the financial interest of the US. Are you impling that the US is the only nation making a profit from the war in Iraq. Yes, there are a few of those, but there is more support than you are letting on, support from established nations who are not new euro states or 3 rd world countries. Such as Australia, denmark,Italy,japan,South korea, and the UK. As of July 1, 2005, there were 26 non-U.S. military forces participating in the coalition and contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, and Ukraine. Are you saying that the US had a role to play in getting elected our new Government, or just that they prefer to work with one that is not so anti-american. I'm sorry that us simplistic rural people do not have the same insight on the worlds problems as you in the Urban centers do" excuse me got to shovel some bullshit out of my driveway". You sound like a liberal MP with some time on his hands. If by great opportunities you mean rebuilding a nation, to one that can govern it's people properly without slaughtering them by the thousands then YES, or by rebuilding a nation that does not resort to war on a whim, yes. We in Canada have gone to plenty of military operations where the goals were not as lofty as the ones in Iraq. To give the Iraqi people a chioce of government, to give them freedoms that they did not have under Sadam. Who cares what the Americans think or do, the situation in Iraq is not about them it is about the Iraqi people and what can be done to help them. You don't get the piont, by keeping your head in the sand solves nothing, other than giving you something to talk about at your Urban dinner table where your opinions mean so much more than the rest of the countries do. Your not part of the solution but part of the problem, because your fixated on blaming the US. The problem is this, Iraq situation is not going to get better unless more of the world gets involved. By doing nothing we solve nothing and the Iraq situation continues, until it boils into something bigger. Perhaps you and the rest of "Urban" Canada should dig thier heads out of thier asses and give us a solution, so we as a nation can do something constructive and help. Instead of sitting on the side lines pionting our Canadian fingers at the US. Telling ourselfs how much better we are.

I think we would all agree that our entire justice system needs to be rebuilt completely. from our laws and punshiment scales to how our prison system interns these convicts. The military system has been proven to work extremily well in providing a deterent for repeat offenses,and a well strutured prison enviroment where there are no stabbings or beatings or other incidents. And it may be worth a look into solving some of the problems we have in our federal prisons. It should be noted that DND dentention center normally does not hold any military prisoners that have commited Federal crimes, unless they are serving thier military portion of thier sentence first, once completed they are then shipped to federal prison. Out of 55,000 military members currently serving our country there may be only 30 to 40 serving in dentention, even that number is on the high side. Below is a look into a military prison. His daily routine. Daily Routine Hours - Reveille 0600 - Shave, scrub rooms and barracks gen- 0600-0730 , clean equipment and layout kit - Breakfast 0730-0800 - Training Period 0800-1150 - Wash up, dinner 1200-1300 - Training Period 1300-1650 - Wash up, supper 1700-1800 - Shower 1800-1830 - Wash clothes, scrub equipment and 1830-1945 perform general tasks - Incidental parades and letter writing 1945-2045 - Make up beds 2045-2100 - Lights out 2100 Sunday Routine Hours - Reveille 0630 - Shave, scrub rooms, and lay out kits 0630-0730 - Breakfast 0730-0800 - Divine Service, as ordered 0800-1000 - Exercise period 1000-1100 - Dinner 1200-1300 - Study, write letters, receive visitors 1300-1600 - Exercise period 1600-1630 - Supper 1645-1800 - Privileges period (as applicable) 1800-2045 - Make up beds 2045-2100 - Lights out 2100 Prison life is based on a progressive approach. .05 - PROGRESSIVE STAGES (1) The punishment of detention, and the punishment of imprisonment when served in a service prison or detention barrack, shall be divided into two stages. (2) The first stage shall commence on the day an inmate is sentenced and shall continue until he has earned promotion by good conduct to the second stage, but shall not be less than fourteen days. (3) During the first stage, no inmate shall be entitled to: (a) a communication period; ( a smoking period; or © visitors, other than official visitors mentioned in article 4.16. (4) When an inmate is promoted to the second stage he shall, in accordance with these regulations: (a) be entitled to the prescribed privileges; and ( commence to earn remission of punishment. PRIVELEGES DURING SECOND STAGE During the second stage, an inmate shall be entitled to: (a) communicate with other inmates for a maximum period of thirty minutes each day at the times and under the conditions prescribed by the commandant; ( smoke cigarettes at the times and under the conditions prescribed by the commandant, provided that the aggregate smoking time in any one day does not exceed thirty minutes; © the use of the library; and (d) visitors. Everything a prisoner does is based on a seris of marks to which go's to earning him "timed served" there no time off for good behavior, Fail to earn enough pionts for the day and that day does not count towards your sentence as time served. SYSTEM OF MARKS (1) The system of marks set out in this article shall be used to assess an inmate's conduct for the purpose of: (a) promoting him from the first stage to the second stage; and ( determining the portion of his punishment that may be remitted. (2) Except when he is under penalty an inmate shall be entitled to earn a maximum of eight marks each day for his conduct. In awarding these marks, attention shall be paid to the inmate's industry and attention during training, his dress and department, and Ws sense of discipline. (3) Unless the commandant orders otherwise, an inmate shall receive eight marks for each day: (a) between the date of imposition of the punishment and the date of his admission; ( on which Sunday routine applies; © spent while on transfer from a service prison or detention barrack to another place of incarceration; and (d) spent in hospital, or other place for the reception of sick persons. (4) For each day not mentioned in (3) of this article, the senior non-commissioned member normally shall award the imate's marks. He may, after consultation with the senior guard on each duty shift, award six, seven, or eight marks to an inmate. If the senior non-commissioned member considers that the inmate is entitled to less than six marks, the commandant shall, in the presence of the inmate, award an appropriate mark. (5) No inmate shall be promoted from the first stage to the second stage until he has earned 112 marks. Marks earned for promotion to the second stage shall not count for remission of punishment. (6) Marks awarded shall be recorded daily in the Register of Marks MISBEHAVIOUR An inmate who offends in any way against good order and discipline commits an act of misbehaviour. Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, misbehaviour of an inmate includes: (a) disrespect to any member of the staff, visitor, or other person; ( idleness, carelessness, negligence, or refusal to work; © irreverent behaviour at Divine Service; (d) use of blasphemous or other improper language; (e) indecency in language, act, or gesture; (f) communication or attempts at communication with another inmate or person without authority; (g) singing, whistling, or any unnecessary noise or disturbance; (h) leaving his place of duty or any room without authority; (i) wilful disfiguration of or damage to, or attempts at dis-figuration of or damage to, any part of the service prison or detention barrack, or any articles to which he may have access; (j) nuisance or an attempt to commit nuisance; (k) possession of any article without authority; (l) conveyance to or reception from or an attempt to convey to or receive from any person any article without authority; or (m) inattention whilst performing any duty or undergoing training. - CORRECTIVE MEASURES The following corrective measures may be applied in respect of Misbehaviour by an inmate: (a) close confinement; ( No. 1 Diet; © No. 2 Diet; (d) loss of privileges; and (e) forfeiture of marks earned for remission. 6.12 - CLOSE CONFINEMENT 1) When the corrective measure of close confinement is applied to an inmate, he shall be: (a) confined in the room or cell set apart for that purpose; ( deprived of all privileges; © allowed to exercise for two periods of thirty minutes each day; and (d) entitled to no mark for conduct. 2) No inmate shall undergo the corrective measure of close confinement without the concurrence of the medical officer. No.l Diet when applied for a period of three days or less shall consist of fourteen ounces of bread a day and unrestricted quantities of water. NO. 2 DIET (1) No. 2 Diet when applied for a period of twenty-one days or less shall consist of; (a) for breakfast, seven ounces of bread and unrestricted quantities of water, ( for dinner, (i) porridge containing two ounces of oatmeal, (ii) two ounces of peas or beans, (iii) eight ounces of potatoes, (iv) the normal flavouring of salt, and Above is mixed together in one bowl. (v) unrestricted quantities of water, and © for supper, seven ounces of bread and unrestricted quantities of water. Above are what our military prisoners are subject to today, Military prisoners have Two chioces conform and serve their time with good conduct, or fight the system and remain in custody until you see the errors of your way. There is no automactically getting time off for good behavior, but earning each day that counts towards your sentence. Prisoners that have been released after serving thier time have been quoted as being model soldiers. So there is merit to this system.

FTA Lawyer: Sorry i must have misunderstood the message that you were trying to send. but by continuely telling me how hard life is in prison that is what i thought you were trying to do, provoke sympathy. No, you can't easily quantify it or explain it in a few words. one has to live it or live with it, to fully understand it. and i applaud you in trying to do just that in your post. However what struck a cord with me was how some of your posts sounded like you were trying to provoke sympathy for these Men and women in prison. The same people who by thier own choose have had thier freedoms taken away "well some of them of thier freedoms". My 6 month tour in Afgan i was exposed to some of the most brutal justice there is and took alittle offense when you said how hard our convicts got it. Perhaps i overreacted, or perhaps our convicts really don't know just how good they got it. This is where i fail to understand your piont. In todays world ,here in Canada i find it hard to believe that a person has to turn to a life of crime to survive, if thats the case then each person makes a chioce to comit crimes. knowing full well that those crimes may in fact lead to serving prison terms. which leads me to think that A) going to prison and losing a few of thier freedoms is not a deterant, and the punishment does not fit the crime. The only thing that seems to scare them is the fact that they will be locked up with others of the same ilk or worse. which again proves that our justice system may not be working or is tough enough. Again when i read the above quote i get the feeling that your pro convict and anti corrections officer. I to have a father inlaw who i describe in a few 4 letter words. Ill sum up ,I will agree with you, life is hard in prison for alot of prisoners. but then again it's supposed to be if it was'nt we'd all be in there. Perhaps with our new gov't things will change for the better for us law bidding citizens anyway. Thank you for the kind words about our countries military.

Black dog: I did not say they were ignorant savages that require our guidance. Just that they would need our help to get the ball rolling. If they were capable of doing this by themselfs without help why have they not done anything to date. Are you saying the coalition is holding them back. I disagree there will always be someone that will take an interest in countries like Iraq like Russia, china, etc. sticking our heads in the sand does not make the problem go away. sooner or later someone will have to take action, IE 1 st gulf war, or are you saying we should have stayed out of that one as well. I did not imply we would decide who is worth saving, what i did say is the world has already decided what is right and wrong and how each country should conduct themselfs, break those rules and suffer the consquences. and that should be implied regardless if their is material gains or not. example Iraq got attention because of the oil, Rwanda got no attention because thier was nothing to be gained, except saving thousands of lives. And your right there is no guarantees in live except when we do nothing then nothing is guaranteed. And i'm not saying we rebuild Iraq in our image but rather in a new Iraq that can live and prosper in todays world.