Guest Peanuts Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Thanx for the great reply Don ! I am glad to know that I am not the one who feels this way Take care, Peanuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 You make some excellent points, and I don't entirely disagree with you. I guess the biggest problem I have is the decision do remove Saddam without UN approval (it had to be there's no doubt) and although the attack was led by the US, Great Britian was right beside them, and for me this is a scary portent of things to come. As for the 9/11 thing, I never elluded that it was retaliation. Brett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peanuts Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Hello Steam Driven, Interesting handle ! "WE HAVE A COURT SYSTEM AND PENALTIES ARE APPLIED" Come on now, do you really believe that or are you simply blowing hot air ?? There is nothing more pathetic then the Canadian juristical system. We have repeat offenders walking about amongst us in our "society" because of the failure of our laws. Which at times seems to only protect the quilty not the innocent. We have teenagers fully aware that the are protected because of their age and consequently are out, again in our "society" stealing vehicles while impaired, hurting people etc., etc,... Now if I misread your posting to which I don't believe I did, then please excuse my response. However, I will reiterate myself by saying that the Canadian Court System needs a good hard kick in the rear. Peanuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 errr.... ahhhh.... Peanuts lassie.... I'm just-a-havin' a read through this here thread and-a-wonderin' if'n I feel like puttin' some thoughts forward... then I come upon this here comment: "There is nothing more pathetic then the Canadian juristical system." Now I'll admit to bein' somewhat less educated than the vast majority here, but I'm havin' trouble knowin' whether I agree with you or not when I can't for the life of me come up with an explanation for just what our "juristical" system is?? I've missed a bunch, to be sure... I even had to look up what it means to "have ones ducks in a row" once upon a time... and I know there's many a hole in my self educated version of what's what, but that one has got me puzzlin'??? Guess I'd better hit the books. :s Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Was there UN aproval? The U.S. thinks there was by virtue of the resolution that sat flouted and unenforced for several years. It's all in the interpretation I suppose... Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 I don't agree with you Peanuts, we have a system in Canada that is in serious need of overhaul. I was refering to the greater society of the West and it's decision to abide by laws set down by elected representatives, and enforced by those sworn to uphold the rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 "The freedom to write (etc) means nothing if that freedom becomes irrelevant to the democratic process." That's certainly true, but it's hard to call it irrelevant when that freedom does indeed allow an influence of opinion. In the comparisons the author made, (if I recall correctly) none of those compared ever had such freedoms. It may be something we take for granted, but when I think of the Chinese experience, and the events leading up to the Tienenmen Square uprising, it occurs to me that even the US is still huge steps ahead of many states. I am concerned, however, that yes, the US under GWB does seem to be somewhat untouchable. And as you pointed out, any notions of democracy as pertaining to "defence" policies are pretty illusional. Whole departments that, by their nature, are unquestionable... the CIA and their look-alikes can't possibly be known.... "Homeland defense" could encompass one hell of a lot more than meets the eye, and the US populace wouldn't know, nor be allowed to know. I do think there's encouragement to be found in educated people asking such questions. People, though surely not a majority, who read, and do ask questions, at least have some limiting effect on governments run amuck. Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peanuts Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 got it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 hmmmm... Ok, I've struck out. Tho' I did find a word I'd never heard of before; Juridical adj. of the administration of justice, courts of justice, or jurisprudence Was that the word you intended? Or is my dictionary lagging almost as bad as I am? If that was the word, I don't think I follow you... why would you be calling our court system so pathetic? I've seen flaws to be sure, as have we all.... but generally speaking, it's a system that seems, to me at least, to try very hard to keep true justice in mind. In fact, it's a system I find somewhat more trustworthy than that of the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Yes, our parliamentary system of election is oh sooo much less effective than say the U.S. Electoral College process ... no chance of manipulating that in order to pervert the will of the electorate now is there? In our system you know who a party's candidate for PM is when you vote. Vote for the party you get the candidate. You don't like the candidate, don't vote for the party ... simple really. As for Paul Martin, he will probably face the electorate far more quickly than any US Vice-President who has ascended to office in mid-term (Truman, Johnson, Ford), so our system hardly disadvantages the public in that respect. Just imagine what three and a half years of Dan Quayle might have been like! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JakeYYZ Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Amazingly, or amusingly, fully documented facts are either dismissed out-of-hand or explained away using the exact same verbiage that spills from the cable news programs as though these people's minds are mere tape-recorders. It is not uncommon for the most severely brainwashed to greet inconvenient facts with a practiced look that seems to say, more or less: "What are you some kind of an idiot? Obviously you don't watch Fox News, 'cause if you did, we wouldn't need to have this conversation!" One of the more bizarre ideas that seems to have recently taken root in the minds of the functionally insane is that the question of whether the Shrub administration lied to the American people during the selling of the Iraq war hinges entirely on a mere 16 words inserted into the State of the Union Address overlooking the rather obvious fact that every official on the Bush team knowingly and quite deliberately lied pretty much every time they stepped up to the podium to offer some imaginary justification for the war. Now that Bush & Blair, the Deadly Duo of Deceit, are exposed as liars and world-class warmongers, be advised that under key definitions of the "Patriot Act" he is guilty for acting to foment domestic terrorism: USC Title 18, Section 2331, (Patriot Act, a new category) - "domestic terrorism" - means activities that: "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." To get Oil War 2, Bush lied about Iraq's WMD to intimidate and coerce both the public and the Congress. Bush, by definition of his own Patriot Act, is a terrorist. No matter how much he and his faithful puppy Blair try to wiggle-worm out of this, too much is known and will not go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peanuts Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Sorry pal but English is my third language and I'll be the first one to admit that I use the wrong words at times. (even verbally ) In any event I'm sure you knew what I meant to say. I have a few personal reasons as to why I believe our Justice system is "pathetic". Second, well I'll even go to third time offenders should NOT be given as many chances as they are today. The Karla Homolkas should not be given a chance at freedom after spending 12 years in a very cozy prison. Especially not after all the evidence pointing at her after she made a plea bargain to testify against her then husband Paul Teal. And the young offenders, Good God....it is simply sickening that they can actually get away with nearly killing people. I'd say bring back the electric chair ! As for the young offenders,..well after the first offense it is immediate "boot camp" and community service. Second offense, you are in boot camp untill 18 then off to the army/navy. Those officers at the army/navy would surely put them in there place as well. Gee, if they still don't get it,....it's off to prison. By the way, young offenders meaning 14 years and under. Everyone 15 and over should be tried as an adult. And none of these silly appeals. If one is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt then that should be final, period ! (ie. video taped etc.) You can not compare Canada to the US because each State has different laws. I personally like the Texas Laws, as well as Washingtons. Many other States have similar laws, I am just using two examples. I believe in the punishment that fits the crime. Well, there you have it. I apologize for any misspelled words ahead of time. Guess I could use the spellcheck, nah....now you bug me about them instead Take care, Peanuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Washington State: * All lollipops are banned. * A law to reduce crime states: "It is mandatory for a motorist with criminal intentions to stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town." * It is illegal to paint polka dots on the American flag. * People may not buy a mattress on Sunday. * All motor vehicles must be preceded by a man carrying a red flag (daytime) or a red lantern (nighttime) fifty feet in front of said vehicle. * It is illegal to pretend that one's parents are rich. * One may not spit on a bus. * When two trains come to a crossing, neither shall go until the other has passed. * You cannot buy meat of any kind on Sunday. Texas: * It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing. * Up to a felony charge can be levied for promoting the use of, or owning more than six dildos. * It is illegal for one to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a hotel. * It is illegal to milk another person's cow. * A recently passed anticrime law requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed. * The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home. * One must acknowledge a supreme being before being able to hold public office. * It is illegal to sell one’s eye. * A program has been created in the state that attempts to control the weather. More state laws at: http://www.dumblaws.com/states/index.html And here's a new one in Illinois: Rape law permits changing mind during sex act Illinois law believed to be first of its kind in the country Wednesday, July 30, 2003 Posted: 10:10 AM EDT (1410 GMT) SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (AP) -- A new rape law in Illinois attempts to clarify the issue of consent by emphasizing that people can change their mind while having sex. Under the law, if someone says "no" at any time the other person must stop or it becomes rape. The National Crime Victim Law Institute said it believed the law is the first of its kind in the country. Lyn Schollett, general counsel for the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the law was important to make it clear to victims, offenders, prosecutors and juries that people have the right to halt sexual activity at any time. "I think it will empower prosecutors in charging cases where the victim and the offender have a sexual history," she said. But the director of the Victim Advocacy & Research Group in Boston said it would be hard to imagine courts not upholding a woman's right to withdraw consent. "To me, it's demeaning," Wendy Murphy said. "It's like the old saying: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' I don't think it was broke." The law was inspired by a California case involving two 17-year-olds who had sex at a party. The girl changed her mind about having sex, but the boy did not stop immediately. He was charged with rape, and it took years for the courts to decide that he could be found guilty under California law. The California Supreme Court ruled in January that a man can be convicted if a woman first consents but later asks him to stop. Lawmakers said they wanted to avoid the same kind of long legal battle in Illinois. Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the law Friday but did not announce it until Monday. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/30/rape.law.ap/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 I never suggested the US had the perfect democracy (Republic). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Steam Driven ... I don't really have the time to enter the debate here but some of your statements are so categorically wrong that I suggest you step back and view a little more of the available information. To wit: North Korea on the other hand is in a stable area, politically and economically. You've got to be kidding! Nothing could be further from the truth. The Korean Peninsula is one of the least stable areas in the world because of NK. The surrounding region, while less hostile to the US, is hardly stable either. China is continuously rumbling on Taiwan, the Philippines have the Abu-Sayef and the military to worry about, and as proven again today Indonesia is a very complex problem. As for the NK economy, it doesn't really exist in any sense we are familiar with. Vast amounts of what little the country earns in trade go into weapons and the military. Very little gets to the people themselves, who as a result experience famines on a regular basis. - North Korea has had the benefit of U.S. aid for years in it's food and oil for industry programmes. That aid is nowhere as large as you would imagine it to be. Japan and South Korea are larger donors than the US. Compared to aid spent elsewhere I think (but can't prove) that the US contribution to NK was relatively small. - North Korea has not sent it's citizens on suicide missions to destroy South Korea. Once again, are you kidding? What history books are you reading from my friend? NK agents have destroyed at least 2 aircraft from the very company I work for. In fact, I gather that there are still Korean Air crewmembers unaccounted for in NK from a hijacking many years back. Add in the kidnappings, the submarine landings and last years naval engagement and you will find that NK is a far more hostile nation than Iraq has been post 1991. - There is still an avenue for dialogue with North Korea. Very true, although the present US administration is doing its level best to screw it up. Bush's first comment on Kim Jong Il was that he was a "pygmy" who he "loathed". Kinda hard to develop any sense of trust in someone who chooses that as his opener on foreign relations with you, wouldn't you say? The US starting position on the nuclear issue was that they would not meet to negotiate, only to accept NK's unconditional surrender on the issue. Given Bush's statements re KJI, NK's inclusion in the Axis of Evil and the war on Iraq, can you imagine any rational leader (let alone the irrational!) acceding to those terms? Recent statements by envoy John Bolton have only further antagonized the process. - North Korea is economically isolated and does not have the wherewithall to finance, purchase, or construct weapons of mass destruction on a huge scale. Totally wrong! Firstly, the whole purpose of WMD is that they do not have to be manufactured on a huge scale to begin with. You merely need a few to use them as incredible force multipliers. And on this score NK is well positioned despite its economic weakness because they have the technological know-how and facilities to build these devices (both plutonium and now uranium based) as well as suitable delivery vehicles such as the Nodong and Taepodong missiles. Absolutely no country on the face of the earth, aside from the declared nuclear powers (and Pakistan had a lot of NK's help on that) has a greater capacity to inflict harm on others than NK. - North Korea wants a one on one dialogue with the United States. They do not want an international body to oversee and administer aid. They would like one party to deal with, ie. threaten, so that they are seen to be in the driver's seat. I'm not sure if you count the desire for direct talks with the US as a point in favour of not going to war with them or not. Regardless, the direct talks NK wants are diametrically opposite to the US approach on the issue. The US has insisted on involving China, Japan, South Korea and Russia in any "dialogue" (they still refuse to "negotiate"). The inability for NK and the US to agree on the multi-lateral versus bi-lateral format of discussion is directly responsible for the fact that issue has not moved one inch in nine months. As it stands, NK has recently agreed to some form of multi-lateral involvement, but I'm unsure on the details or what it means. It's clear, however, that from their standpoint the US is the only nation threatening them and the only nation who they need to secure some sense of safety from. To sum it up I think you're logic regarding North Korea is deeply flawed. Your conclusion that a war against NK is not appropriate is correct, but for all the wrong reasons. Without going into further detail, I think the logic behind those who support George Bush and current US policy related to Iraq and the conduct of the War on Terror is equally fraught with error and unwarranted assumptions. I respect your right to your opinion but I disagree and feel it is necessary to say so. Personally I have never been so concerned for the survival of tolerance, justice and the principles of democracy as I am at this moment. The worst part of it is that I don't fear the declared or undeclared enemies of our ideals half as much as I fear those who would undermine all the precepts we've built our nations upon in the guise of our own self-defence. BoomerPete PS ... Read a good one in the weekend papers. The CIA showed up on the doorstep of the LA Times last week demanding to see their editorial cartoonist over an alleged threat to the president in one of his cartoons. The cartoon in question showed an asassin labelled "Politics" taking aim at good ole' GW. Unfortunately, the boys defending liberty didn't have enough wit to suss out that the cartoonist was actually a strongly conservative supporter of GW who was trying to make the point that partisan "Politics" (in his opinion) was trying to "kill" GW over the relatively "trivial" (again, in his opinion) issue of the 16 famous words. If that doesn't scare you .... it should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Steam Driven ... I don't really have the time to enter the debate here but some of your statements are so categorically wrong that I suggest you step back and view a little more of the available information. To wit: North Korea on the other hand is in a stable area, politically and economically. You've got to be kidding! Nothing could be further from the truth. The Korean Peninsula is one of the least stable areas in the world because of NK. The surrounding region, while less hostile to the US, is hardly stable either. China is continuously rumbling on Taiwan, the Philippines have the Abu-Sayef and the military to worry about, and as proven again today Indonesia is a very complex problem. As for the NK economy, it doesn't really exist in any sense we are familiar with. Vast amounts of what little the country earns in trade go into weapons and the military. Very little gets to the people themselves, who as a result experience famines on a regular basis. - North Korea has had the benefit of U.S. aid for years in it's food and oil for industry programmes. That aid is nowhere as large as you would imagine it to be. Japan and South Korea are larger donors than the US. Compared to aid spent elsewhere I think (but can't prove) that the US contribution to NK was relatively small. - North Korea has not sent it's citizens on suicide missions to destroy South Korea. Once again, are you kidding? What history books are you reading from my friend? NK agents have destroyed at least 2 aircraft from the very company I work for. In fact, I gather that there are still Korean Air crewmembers unaccounted for in NK from a hijacking many years back. Add in the kidnappings, the submarine landings and last years naval engagement and you will find that NK is a far more hostile nation than Iraq has been post 1991. - There is still an avenue for dialogue with North Korea. Very true, although the present US administration is doing its level best to screw it up. Bush's first comment on Kim Jong Il was that he was a "pygmy" who he "loathed". Kinda hard to develop any sense of trust in someone who chooses that as his opener on foreign relations with you, wouldn't you say? The US starting position on the nuclear issue was that they would not meet to negotiate, only to accept NK's unconditional surrender on the issue. Given Bush's statements re KJI, NK's inclusion in the Axis of Evil and the war on Iraq, can you imagine any rational leader (let alone the irrational!) acceding to those terms? Recent statements by envoy John Bolton have only further antagonized the process. - North Korea is economically isolated and does not have the wherewithall to finance, purchase, or construct weapons of mass destruction on a huge scale. Totally wrong! Firstly, the whole purpose of WMD is that they do not have to be manufactured on a huge scale to begin with. You merely need a few to use them as incredible force multipliers. And on this score NK is well positioned despite its economic weakness because they have the technological know-how and facilities to build these devices (both plutonium and now uranium based) as well as suitable delivery vehicles such as the Nodong and Taepodong missiles. Absolutely no country on the face of the earth, aside from the declared nuclear powers (and Pakistan had a lot of NK's help on that) has a greater capacity to inflict harm on others than NK. - North Korea wants a one on one dialogue with the United States. They do not want an international body to oversee and administer aid. They would like one party to deal with, ie. threaten, so that they are seen to be in the driver's seat. I'm not sure if you count the desire for direct talks with the US as a point in favour of not going to war with them or not. Regardless, the direct talks NK wants are diametrically opposite to the US approach on the issue. The US has insisted on involving China, Japan, South Korea and Russia in any "dialogue" (they still refuse to "negotiate"). The inability for NK and the US to agree on the multi-lateral versus bi-lateral format of discussion is directly responsible for the fact that issue has not moved one inch in nine months. As it stands, NK has recently agreed to some form of multi-lateral involvement, but I'm unsure on the details or what it means. It's clear, however, that from their standpoint the US is the only nation threatening them and the only nation who they need to secure some sense of safety from. To sum it up I think you're logic regarding North Korea is deeply flawed. Your conclusion that a war against NK is not appropriate is correct, but for all the wrong reasons. Without going into further detail, I think the logic behind those who support George Bush and current US policy related to Iraq and the conduct of the War on Terror is equally fraught with error and unwarranted assumptions. I respect your right to your opinion but I disagree and feel it is necessary to say so. Personally I have never been so concerned for the survival of tolerance, justice and the principles of democracy as I am at this moment. The worst part of it is that I don't fear the declared or undeclared enemies of our ideals half as much as I fear those who would undermine all the precepts we've built our nations upon in the guise of our own self-defence. BoomerPete PS ... Read a good one in the weekend papers. The CIA showed up on the doorstep of the LA Times last week demanding to see their editorial cartoonist over an alleged threat to the president in one of his cartoons. The cartoon in question showed an asassin labelled "Politics" taking aim at good ole' GW. Unfortunately, the boys defending liberty didn't have enough wit to suss out that the cartoonist was actually a strongly conservative supporter of GW who was trying to make the point that partisan "Politics" (in his opinion) was trying to "kill" GW over the relatively "trivial" (again, in his opinion) issue of the 16 famous words. If that doesn't scare you .... it should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 You're right, you didn't. Most people tend to hold it up as the standard to aspire to when complaining about the Canadian system. Out of curiosity, what system would you propose? Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted August 6, 2003 Author Share Posted August 6, 2003 JakeYYZ; Re your post: it can't be written it clearer than that. For anyone challenging these assessments, take a look at: "The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity", by Tariq Ali, (Verso Press). Also, "Silencing Political Dissent" by Nancy Chang, (Seven Stories Press) Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted August 6, 2003 Author Share Posted August 6, 2003 JakeYYZ; It can't be said much clearer than that. For those who wish to read more, try: "The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity", by Tariq Ali, and "Silencing Political Dissent" by Nancy Chang. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 Well, since English is your third language, I've gotta figure you've got a much better handle on language than I do! And I was serious, btw, I didn't know if you were using a real word there... In fact, I demonstrated that to myself when I found the word "juridical"... definitely a new one to me. I did suspect you'd hit some wrong keys on the board, but I really didn't know what word you were aiming for. Anyway, as for American style justice... you can have it! I've seen enough incredible idiocy to know I want no part of it. "All these silly appeals", as you put it, have true justice in mind. The aim is to come to the correct result at the end of the process. Well worth doing, imo, especially when you consider the numbers of flawed first decisions (and Canada certainly has no monopoly on them!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted August 6, 2003 Author Share Posted August 6, 2003 Steam Driven: You are correct that I am condemning the US and its foreign policies. Further, I am saying that the US is demonstrably, fully engaged in the issues which bore the results we have witnessed. That is not saying the US "deserved" what it got...that's a judgement call and I am not doing that. I am describing what happened, and that we should not be at all surprised by that. That such "engagement" does not make the same headlines that the horrendous tragedies of 9/11, Beirut, Nairobi and others do when the US is attacking other nations is immaterial. None of this has occurred in a vacuum. For example, the Taliban was ostensibly created by the US and Pakistan in 1994 to "govern" Afghanistan and confront the Russians (in the same way the US used the moujahidin in 79-89.). Though much complex history intervenes, these actions may be directly linked, again for example, to the first and second attacks on the WTC. To expect that people who are attacked will stand by and not respond is, as you must grant, unrealistic. I reject the notion of Arabs as "deserving of US discipline" due to their "Tribal Nature" which you claim responds to, and respects only force, not because it is not necessarily untrue, but because such thinking is routinely employed to justify the very atrocities we are discussing. In fact, the same may be said of us by an Arab writer. For an appreciation of this, read Bodansky's book on Osama bin Laden (2000) and "Unholy Wars" (John Cooley for a thorough understanding of these dynamics, and a clear comprehension for example, of the US' use of Rihyad, one of Islam's most holy sites, as an air base from which the first Gulf War was conducted. Osama bin Laden left Saudi Arabia for Sudan in protest, never to return.) None of this is nearly as simple as relying upon the term "Tribal Natures" might make it seem. Notions of the US spreading "democracy" completely fail to recognize what the US has done in the name of that lofty if misleading goal in their client states as described in my second post. Unless one's understanding of "democracy" does not include citizen participation and ultimate control, the US versions of democracy means something quite different and certainly involves big business, a rabbit trail which I will leave for now. Without full citizen control, including access to all information upon which their governments make decisions, we have a monarchy, an oligarchy or perhaps a dictatorship. That is what I meant by the term, "child-like". The assumption that we have a democracy because we are "free" to write/say/do what we will is limited and unsophisticated indeed, (I mean no offense here by this term, so if its taken, I apologize. But truly, there are "mature" understandings of democracy and then there are the Citizenship Class understandings...it makes little sense to go further without that difference being appreciated). Citizens expect that their government is accessible especially when it goes to war to kill other nation's civilians, and that their government is responsive both to inquiry and to widespread dissent. The US citizenry, obtaining its information from sources such as CNN, McPaper (USA Today) and such, do not know what their government is up to, really. Those media outlets lazily attend "news" conferences held (very occasionally by the Bush Administration) to get their copy. Its naive to think that the they'll tell you everything that they're doing "in your name". The notion mentioned elsewhere that we all have to live within rules or suffer the consequences of being "at the edges" is too limited to accomodate the realities which have visited both the eastern and western peoples. To me, such "enforcement" is more like "parent-child" (controlling/authoritarian) than independant nation to independant nation. Yes, Hussein was a small-class thug on the world stage as was Noriega, (Suharto was bigger) but what the US has done in the past and is doing at present far outweighs the dangers posed by this former US ally in Iraq. The US is a multi-farious nation into which one may read almost any attribute one wishes to see, but the public record of atrocities is real and it is accessible to anyone with a bit of time and interest. To deny that such things happened places that denial on the same plane as other denials. General Schneider and Salvador Allende both of Chile were assassinated by the CIA. That is fact. That US-trained and supported troups slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians in East Timor without a whisper of protest from other nations is fact, not fiction. In spreading "democracy" in Iraq, (who's version of democracy?), the US may as well be spreading pixie dust. Democracy in Iraq cannot happen without significant US occupation and control. Touting that we can write this kind of dissent in public because we have the "freedom" to do so is different only in the results of such writing. What is truly worse: To have one's protests tolerated because they are essentially meaningless, knowing one's government is going to carry on regardless of protest,... or simply to be "disappeared" as the US-backed Pinochet government (and Suharto/Sukarno in the Philippines and Sadam Hussein with the Kurds in Iraq and the Shah in Iran etc etc) did with its own citizens? Neither is "democracy". Freedoms without accountability, accessibility, "sunshine" (national security is, in many cases, a ruse to hide behind when leaders are doing something they shouldn't. Recall Nixon trying to avoid the release of his tapes? They're all available now...WHAT national security issues?!) The CNN/Fox version of US diplomacy and actions abroad is as limited and fictitious as the ubiquitous Law and Order except the talking heads and computer graphics are way better eye-candy. How's this for diplomacy: Leslie Stahl: "We have heard that half a million children have died in Iraq. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it?" Madeline Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price? We think the price is worth it." - CBS News, 1996 So...are "their" children not as "worthy" as ours? Is it okay to murder their children but not the reverse? Examples such as these are tragically available by the dozens. I've said here many times and say here with the greatest respect for you SteamD for even engaging the dialogue, that I'm not interested in scoring debating points. I'm interested in the dialogue "out there". I think it is the utmost responsibility of each citizen to be as clear as possible on what his/her "democracy" is all about and to make life genuinely, sincerely tough for our representatives in government. In doing so, I think it is important to challenge "received" notions and examine the historical record and not what the media choose to tell us. That, these days, takes far too much hard work when it shouldn't. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted August 6, 2003 Author Share Posted August 6, 2003 BoomerPete: Re "Personally I have never been so concerned for the survival of tolerance, justice and the principles of democracy as I am at this moment." No kidding!! Thank you for saying it. That's why I used the term "fascist" in the original title. I am deeply concerned about where this is going. The Patriot Act in the US means something. So does the notion of "treason". Who sits in judgement is, so far, still relatively independant in a Congressional hearing. But the dangers of McCarthyism are just around the corner and the US is ripe for it in my opinion. Please see my response to Steam Driven above. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innuendo Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 "All these silly appeals", Canada has at this moment five people now living their lives as free citizens that were wrongly convicted of murder by the judicial system of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peanuts Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 good humour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peanuts Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 Yep, I did screw up and wrote the wrong word down. Guess I ain't perfect after all Thanx for your point of view. We are all entitled to our own opinions. I certainly have mine ! Our own ideas and thoughts make the world go round and round. As well as they keep it an interesting world to live in. Like I started before. I simply have a problem with "silly" appeals such as ones like the convict appealing that he didn't have a fair trial because the entire town saw him kill someone. Know what I mean. On the other hand, appeals are a great thing for wrongfully accused people. And yes there have been many cases around the world as such. However, many and many criminals appeal and appeal just to be aggrevating and we the tax payers pay for all of that. That is all I was trying to imply when I mentioned the word "silly appeals". Hope I made myself a little clearer. Take care, gone peanuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.