supercanuk

The Brits said that they were in Iraqi waters, the Iranians claim they were in Iranian waters. Between the Brits and the Iranians, I'd take the Brits' word on it. lol i had JUST made that edit. However i'd take neither's word on it, they both have vested interests. Knowing where they really were is going to depend on testimony and possibly even sea data held in the ships.

"We may well find that this is a simple misunderstanding at the tactical level." This was quoted from British officials and i think it sums it up pretty much. Either way, the Brit's boarded the Iranian ship, not the other way around, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1723 in "support of the government of Iraq" to stop smuggling. Whether or not Iraq had much choice in this resolution seeing that al-Maliki is basically a puppet is obviously a footnote to the international press. Disregarding the rules of international waters by checking whomever seems to be floating by is a pretty serious offense internationally and is an infringement on the sovreignty of Iran. So i'd suggest instead of Iran having to explain themselves its really the other way around, what in that Security Council Resolution allowed British ships to enter Iranian waters, the resolution is to protect Iraqi waters! Again, this is probably a big misunderstanding, but even so, it's not an act of any type of Iranian aggression and it's events like these that are often spun to catalyze some pretext to war. Look at the example of the Gulf of Tulken justification for the Vietnam war.. a big lie! EDIT: Again, this is IF the Brits were in Iranian waters, there is yet to be evidence of this.

I think the money was more for the votes in the upcomming election. If you can win over Ontario and Quebec you have the federal election in the bag with our system. I'm not too sure their worried about Quebec leaving. yes exactly money for votes for upcoming quebec provincial election. Its basically Liberal Charest vs Parti Quebecois. Do the Cons even have a person running lol? The Quebec money will help Charest & federalist cause, because if the PQ wins guess what they'll call... i think u meant money 4 votes for federal election right? Thats another big reason, plus giving that money to Quebec got the Bloc on board w/ the budget so it cant be voted down. Yeah i meant federal election but the pundits have been saying its going for Charest as well.

I think the money was more for the votes in the upcomming election. If you can win over Ontario and Quebec you have the federal election in the bag with our system. I'm not too sure their worried about Quebec leaving.

This isn't particularly funny but it is interesting! Check this

Exactly!! This is such bollocks! Even Don Newman, anchor of CBC called Jimbo on the fact that it was the same thing the Tories had critized the Grit's over a while ago. It's an election budget, by that i mean it wont cause an election but when one comes, the Tories will be all "look at our sweet budget we passed". It's just a bunch of balls. Apparently the money for post-secondary schools is not going to tuition so that makes me angry. Also, this whole, let's give people a tax break, i'm wondering REALLY how much middle-class family will see if this. Will it actually be 600$? Anyway, this is balls.

CBC definetely puts on some good docs but they certainly have their downfalls. It's not like the CBC can be likened to Iran or China, or the tyrannical government found in Alan Moore's comic made move V for Vendetta. The issue is that does the CBC represent the same interests as the private owned media? The CBC gets gov't funding and has internal checks for bias and can be held under close scrutiny then private media outlets yes. But both government and private corporations tend to support the same things, and the interests that they protect are also the same. They legitimize illegitimate authority, and shape opinions as well. This is the problem i find with ALL media, not just government owned, and at least with the CBC you COULD try and get reform done to it, whereas with private media you can't. An example: CBC has been really weak on the Afghanistan issue, they don't cover very much of what is going on with the warlords in Karzai's government(whom we support btw) stifling women's movements (RAWA which existed prior to and during the Taliban years). And at the same time, the CBC will rip apart the U.S. and the Iraq debacle, which im glad they do, but they cannot expose straight lies our own government are stating themselves. The media both private and governmental is something that doesn't have to have official censorship, if you get into the media establishment you have been trained through schooling to censor yourself, just the way they want you.

yah i can imagine it would have been, but seriously thats really annoying, leave the people be, they'll come to you if their interested!

Ive only gotten that when they came to my highschool back in the day, but thats messed, if i was just walking down the street and some recruiter was hasseling me id probably loose it on him/her.

yeah, same here, i guess we just have to wait for the iBra heheheh yah i did too. Although it was funnier then i expected.

lol heyrabbit wasn't too bad, him and I had a lengthy discourse, of course it helped that we agreed with a lot of what we were talking about, but we had more critiques of each other. Quite true Lincoln's official history is that he "freed the slaves" and all this. In reality, he never intended whites and blacks to be equal and he stated so, quite well documented that he was still a bigot. That war itself had all kinds of mitigating factors, again, history just is too complicated to make official histories like we get taught in high school, when one scrutinizes these individuals the picture often becomes quite different. Putin is an interesting example, i don

Where did you get the impression that I said everything would be fine? These things take a LOT of time, but the right path forward is independence. Nobody has the right to tell you how to live but you, and this goes for the national scale as well. Of course all of these issues are extremely complex and both of us are simplifying this to a very abstract degree, but i am not saying that there are not other issues, just because i failed to mention them, does not mean i don

And which perspective are we refusing to see? The people you debated who said the Russians got what they deserved were a pretty sad bunch of folks but i saw no where in the media that even mentioned that perspective. People often cite Africa as an example when i get this response. Well, let's look at "Africa" for starters there are many nations, many regions, who all have very complex histories. Like Russia, you can't ignore that past and then say that if my idealistic vision wouldn't work, Africa has been suffering from Western intervention for hundreds of years. Taking Africa is a total blanket statement, let's take Rwanda, lets take Sierra Leone, let's take South Africa, what do they all have in common? They are all ex-colonial regions, and there also some of the most messed up countries only now recovering. Colonial powers have raped Africa of her resources, people, and health. Africa is to complex to take the entire continent as an example. But let's take North America. Before the Western genocide of the indigenious people there was a complex, egalitarian, and vibrant self-management and governance. People hardly recognize that aboriginals were able to sustain their life and the life of the planet without (in many cases without formal forms of government) kiling each other off like mad. Sure there were battles between groups but not on the scale of annihiliation. That maybe idealistic, but it happened, and because it was like this for thousands of years, it means it COULD happen again. But these maybe are unfair examples, so what demographic issues, and which backgrounds require an iron-fisted leader? People do have the ability to run their own affairs and even if it does turn into tribalism i think that will be a passing affair, like Iraq, there are factions fighting but their common goal is to get the occupyiers out of the country. Once that happens healing between the factions can occur, and we may not like it, but we dont have a right to interfere. We in the West seem to believe we need to control everyones life, and yes some terrible things can occur, but there are ways of helping people without the military and i think this hasn't even been given a chance so i fail to see how its so idealistic. EDIT: This was in the Ottawa Citizen Today: LINK

That

So you really think that when people are tortured, kidnapped, beaten and when a state commits grave offences against humanatarian law that people dont react in terrible ways? You dont think Chechnya's children suffer? link. I am not saying that this is something your putting forward, i know your not a heartless person and children are always the first (well women and children) victims of conflict. So yes of COURSE the actions done against the school children were terrible but all kinds of terrible things are done to kids in Chechnya as well, and its just state policy, fill the area with landmines, something known after a conflict to directly affect the next generation. Kadyrov also believes that ruling with an iron fist is the way to go, so im not too impressed by him either, dont think i support him either. I support people, not their elected representatives, to take control of their own lives, they don't need oppressors to do that for them. I really don

So... which Chechen school did Russian soldiers kill hundreds of children in? Which Chechen civilian airliners did the Russians bring down? I think there's a major difference between stray shells or things that go wrong in battlefield situation and a deliberate targeting of children. As a Chechen rebel explained it later, the purpose of this attack was to elevate the fighting a new level, that is to prove that nothing is sacred... not exactly something civilized "freedom fighters" ought to be doing. Saying "oh well I guess those Russians reap what they sow" excuses, if not condones, such actions. I think Russia definitely has a chance of avoiding American domination. I think Russia's government clearly sees the threat at hand and probably has plans of its own. So its civil to torture, and kidnap? These actions are not only systematic, but institutional:

If one is to talk about brutalizing entire populations, one may definitely wanna take a peek at Iraq. Or perhaps China's taking of Tibet. yes, we don't try to turn a blind eye to China or Iraq or Iran or etc etc etc, so why should Russia be any different? Sure you can talk about how Chechnya's terrorist are targeting women and children (we all remember when they stormed the school and the opera) but that's what terrorist do. Why can't Putin take the higher ground? Sure you do. At least your governments do, in fact the US gov't is responsible for Iraq. Just so its clear, im not giving the U.S. a pass on Iraq, im just saying, like the U.S., Russia has blood and it's hands that certainly liken themselves to the U.S (Long period of repressing Chechnyians that CAUSE terrorism to occur, Russia uses terrorism, so Chechnyians use terrorism, its a never ending battle until one side wins). Also, like the U.S. they intervened in Afghanistan, eventually being pushed out, at the time of course this was the Soviets so no i am not saying this is Putin's fault. Anyway. Just for the record, Garsk, i know you probably know this, but the Russian military targets women and children in Chechnya as well, its all a vicious cycle, so i'd really like people to stop using the word terrorism since it's lost all meaning. The major world powers are the biggest terrorists this world has ever seen, its the same parable that Thomas Aquinas posited, it went something to the effect that an emperor is simply a pirate (terrorist) with a larger fleet. There is a whole story to that but this is the jist of it. Just for the record i truely hope that Russia does get better, i hope there is a bigger middle class growing without being impeded, i am not here bashing Russia for the sake of it, i just think everyone needs to be as critical as possible about who pulls the strings in this world. Russia will be unable to stop the U.S. from dominating it, it can try but China will probably also beat it economically for a while yet. The U.S. plans to, and effectively is succeeding in, "full spectrum dominance", look up Project for the New American century to really get an idea of what im talking about. Essentially this is a thinktank who made up a plan called "Rebuilding Americas Defenses"? I think, i have to check again but dont have time tonight. Anyway, it essentially states that it needs to invade one of the Eurasian countries to maintain full spectrum dominance, in other words, military and economic dominance. It's an imperial vision that has dreadful consequences for terrorism, but of course makes perfect sense to those in washington under this "rational" On a completely other note, What i question is why bother? I mean seriously why bother put all that money into the military? With that money you could revolutionize your country and make it a place of peace, prosperity and equality. Certainly keep enough to defend the country from fascists (unless Putin is really the fascist here, that is a debateable point). It seems to me that Putin wants to hold his grip on power, and like all megalomaniac's that run major countries they wont choose the peace they could, by simply stop participating in terrorism. Putin, like many other leaders who dont fall into lock-step with Washington is feeling the burn, but that wont last, and maybe a glimmer of democracy can flourish if its not totally crushed by some other fascist dick.

I feel as though there is a real jumbled understanding here of Russia and I

I'm pretty pissed, not ganna lie, i liked Corner Gas.. i didnt watch it much but when i did it was enjoyable.

This is a really good interview done with Bob McChesney one of the leading media critics and a research professor in the Institute of Communications Research and the Graduate School of Information and Library Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Robert Fisk is the leading Middle East correspondent for the Independent.March 4th 2007 (btw, there are some funny quack callers)

Good ;) lol

wow these people are out to lunch.

I dont know if anyone has posted this but i found it fairly funny! Keep your Jesus off my Penis

Awesome, i think you will enjoy it, at least I hope you will lol if your interested in politics im sure you will be.

Roll up the rim is back again Canada, and look what they have this year!