A Harper majority would harm Canada and the world.

[Dixie Cup]

Empowering average people doesn't seem to be in the Conservative's vocabulary.

I would say the opposite; conservatives actually think people are better off when they take matters into their own hands. No one knows your circumstances better than you

JMO

 

[Zzarchov]

I would say the opposite; conservatives actually think people are better off when they take matters into their own hands. No one knows your circumstances better than you

JMO

So when we collectively decide that certain industries are too key to modern life to have private monopolies and we decide to pool our tax dollars into a funding a state monopoly,

We are wrong? We shouldn't do things ourself and should instead be run by a private group of individuals who are given our investments for pennies on the dollar?

Thanks Harris!

 

[earth_as_one]

This is EAO, misleading. The estimate is just that......an estimate. Not only that, out of many such estimates, you choose the one with the highest numbers, and then quoted a number closer to the high end of the possible range in their estimate.

Far far from truth.

Be honest.

Quote the low estimates, and the high estimates. Let the reader decide which is true........and point out that the vast majority of these deaths have been caused by Islamo-fascist terrorists in ethnic murder......not directly by US troops.

Let the reader decide ultimate responsibility.

Anything else is dishonest.

I agree let the reader decide. Here are two recent estimates:

Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths. June 2006

Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. August 2007

Like election polls, the above numbers are not absolute, but estimates with a statistical accuracy value.

Other much lower casualty counts exist based on absolute numbers. But absolute numbers which do not take into account all deaths are not accurate and must be considered absolute minimums. Iraq Body Count for example bases its numbers on news reports. But the majority of Iraqis dying violent deaths don't make the news. The Iraqi Health Ministry survey of 151,000 violent deaths out of 400,000 excess deaths due to the war in June 2006 does not take into account bodies which were buried by families rather than taken to the hospital or the morgue. In Iraq, its a cultural norm for families to bury their dead this way.

Readers can see the various estimates for themselves here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

An estimate is not a lie as Colpy implies. I quoted the most recent estimate which happens to be the highest. (Unless people are resurrecting faster than being killed, it should be expected that the number of dead will increase over time.) The most recent estimate at 1,033,000, is over a million. Therefore my statement that more than a million people have died as a result of this war is statistically probable and a year out of date.

I made the statement the same way people who supported this war crime made similar statements about Hussein's atrocities. Those numbers about deaths attributable to Hussein are also based on estimates with statisical accuracy, rather than absolute numbers. I notice Colpy has no problem with those "estimates".

People like Colpy who claim the Iraq invasion was justified by Hussein's atrocities fail to put the deaths in the context of war and insurgent revolt or mention that they happened 10-25 years before the US led invasion and that at the time of the invasion, Iraq was more or lesss peaceful. How honest is that?

Regarding who is killing more civilians. Colpy has no facts to back up his belief that "the vast majority of these deaths have been caused by Islamo-fascist terrorists in ethnic murder......not directly by US troops." Initally that belief was certainly not true:

Published on Saturday, September 25, 2004 by Knight-Ridder
More Iraqi Civilians Killed by US Forces Than By Insurgents, Data Shows
by Nancy A. Youssef

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0925-02.htm

Since then the Iraqi Health Ministry has been instructed not to attribute deaths to one side or the other. So its unknown who is killing more innocent civilians currently. Also when US forces kill people, they are routinely reported as insurgents rather than civilians. Often those "insurgents" turn out to be civilians. You can see how the US covers up civilian deaths in this discussion about the Haditha massacre:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/77264-haditha-massacre-charges-dropped.html

Also when insurgents attack military targets, our news routinely reports all deaths as civilian rather than military. That's unlikely. Its far more likely to assume insurgents have a purpose when they attack and that at least some of casualties are legitimate military targets. Therefore our news isn't a very objective way to guage which side is killing more civilians.

Regarding the people Colpy labels "Islamo-fascists". Under international Iraqis have a legal right to resist a foreign occupation, especially one resulting from an illegal war crime. These people are legally defined as "insurgents". Colpy's attempt to label Iraqi insurgents as Islamic extremists is not based on fact. Most Iraqis who resist the foreign occupation are little different than the French who resisted Nazi occupation during WW II and are motivated by nationalism and outrage over atrocities (like the Haditha massacre referenced above) as they are by religion. I would say its more likely that for most of America's adversaries, religion is a way to deal with death and sacrifice rather than being a root cause of the violence. Before the US led invasion, Iraqis were as religious as they are now, yet since the invasion, the violence has increased substantially. Its more likely the root cause of insurgent violence is the US led invasion/occupation, not religion.

So who is being less than honest here C? I quoted the most recent estimate which is already a year old and now likely an underestimate. Your post doesn't reference any estimate, makes unsubstantiated claims about "Islmo-fascists" and is phrased to make me look dishonest.

Colpy's attempt to minimize the scale of Harper supported war crimes is less than honest.

Maybe Colpy sincerely believes what he is posting, but that would make him misinformed and manipulated.

I bet Colpy can't even admit what is by now obvious about the Iraq war:

"Pre-war justifications for the US led Iraq invasion were not supported by known facts and consisted mostly of unsupported allegations and manipulative propaganda to generate support for a hostile war of aggression which is a war crime."

Its one thing to be made a fool. Buts its another to choose to stay a fool.

Back on subject:
Harper's support of US led war crimes in Iraq based on unspported allegations and manipulative propaganda prove he is not fit to lead Canada.

 

[lone wolf]

I would say the opposite; conservatives actually think people are better off when they take matters into their own hands. No one knows your circumstances better than you

JMO

That's why all the walls and plexiglass?
I'll remember that the next time I'm swinging a bureaucrat around by the necktie....

 

[Zzarchov]

Ok, so BBC and everyone else is wrong,

Because of an exclusive seen by 1 guy, that then disappears?


Earth as One:

I would like you to admit something equally obvious:

the act of attempted genocide is a war crime, if personally ordered by the leader of a country who will not turn himself in for trial, nor is elligible for prosecition at any point in his own country, it is acceptable to use force to bring him to trial.

 

[Dixie Cup]

earth_as_one: I was referring to "Empowering average people" part specific to the quote. As for industries, government should be there to "regulate" to ensure the population is protected, (environmentally, legally, etc); but to run these industries -nope!! Governments have no business being in business. Governments need to step aside and let business do what they do best - innovate, invest, employ....

JMO

 

[earth_as_one]

Z:

Technically what Hussein did in Iraq 10-25 years before the US led invasion were crimes against humanity. Hussein's unprovoked wars of aggression against Iran 20 years earlier and against Kuwait 13 years earlier were war crimes.

But Hussein's war crimes and crimes against humanity back then do not justify American war crimes in 2003. Using those events 10-25 years after the fact were just manipulative propaganda.

A crime against humanity was going on in 2003, but it wasn't in Iraq or in our news. It was in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

Even if Hussein's war crimes were the reason for starting this war. Then it would be stupid to start a war which has killed more than a million people to bring Hussein to justice for killing more than a million people, especially when Iraq was more or less peaceful at the time of the invasion.

At the time Hussein committed his worst atrocities he was an allie of the US. The same people who used Hussein's atrocities to justify their war crimes were in league with Hussein at the time he committed his worst atrocities.

Rumsfeld agreeing to help Hussein develop CWs and BWs to use against Iran.

I have already posted references to the US helping Iraq develop its CW and BW weapons and US providing Iraq with intel to use those weapons more effectively against the Iranians. When Iraq used of CW agents against its own civilians in the context of crushing a revolt, the US initially tried to blame the Iranians and defended Iraq at the UN. When the rest of the world imposed an embargo on Iraq in resoponse to Hussein's crimes against humanity, the US increased its support for Hussein. President Reagan refused to join the embargo despite to Hussein's atrocties because it would be bad for US business and US interests in the middle east.

If Americans were serious about holding people accountable for Iraq's war crimes during the 1980s and 90s, they would have arrested Rumsfeld.

 

[Zzarchov]

So you are saying as long as Bush isn't punished immediately than it doesn't matter what he does?

He could launch poison gas and kill everyone in Iraq and get off scott free because that wouldn't ever be a justification for anyone to do anything about it in 10 years?

So Bush should have just killed everyone at the start of his term, then he'd be 80% of his way to a free man?




It doesn't matter what the reason for the invasion was, it was good that it happened. Saddam was a genocidal war criminal who was brought to Justice.


Unless you are claiming that there is a 15 year statue of limitations on Genocide, are you?

I look forward to your response.

 

[Dixie Cup]

oh, I forgot - and pay taxes!!

 

[earth_as_one]

So Z, what do you make of this statement?

"Pre-war justifications for the US led Iraq invasion were not supported by known facts and consisted mostly of unsupported allegations and manipulative propaganda to generate support for a hostile war of aggression which is a war crime."

 

[earth_as_one]

The time to punish Bush would be when the next President takes office but only if cost of bringing Bush to justice isn't excessive.

I would disagree with killing a million Americans in order to hold a powerless former President accountable for his war crimes. The reality is that sometimes people get away with murder. But I agree war crimes and crimes against humanity have no statute of limitations. Eventually Pinochet was arrested fro his crimes against humanity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet's_arrest_and_trial

If Pinochet was arrested as soon as he relinquished power, it would have plunged Chile inot civil war.

What's more important is that criminals like Hussein and Bush and people who support them like Harper are exposed. Eventually Bush may indeed be held accountable for his war crimes. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Zzarchov]

1.) I hate laptops and deleted posts

2.) The US as an "ally" of Iraq supplied dual use items (civilian helicopters and trucks, computers) at the time of the genocidal attacks.

Its actually allies and major suppliers are France, Russia (soviets to be fair) and China.

Those groups are not worhty of scorn though apparently,

2.) No nation needs a pretext to go to war with a war criminal in violation of the terms of his peace treaty, especially if the peace treaty is with you about his last war of aggression.

Saddam could have gone in peacefully before the invasion, that was an offer.



Any war in Iraq, regardless of how piss poor its been handled, how much less suffering their could have been if it was better managed etc, was long overdue.

It should have happened in the first gulf war. Genocide is not Ok, Iraq needs to fall, and I hope someday the government in Sudan will be put on trial one way or another.

 

[earth_as_one]

1.) I hate laptops and deleted posts

2.) The US as an "ally" of Iraq supplied dual use items (civilian helicopters and trucks, computers) at the time of the genocidal attacks.

Its actually allies and major suppliers are France, Russia (soviets to be fair) and China.

Those groups are not worhty of scorn though apparently,

2.) No nation needs a pretext to go to war with a war criminal in violation of the terms of his peace treaty, especially if the peace treaty is with you about his last war of aggression.

Saddam could have gone in peacefully before the invasion, that was an offer.



Any war in Iraq, regardless of how piss poor its been handled, how much less suffering their could have been if it was better managed etc, was long overdue.

It should have happened in the first gulf war. Genocide is not Ok, Iraq needs to fall, and I hope someday the government in Sudan will be put on trial one way or another.

American support of Iraq after the rest of the world imposed an embargo on Iraq was more than just dual use equipment.

The Ties That Blind
How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons
By NORM DIXON

On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, "Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas". Quoting anonymous US "senior military officers", the NYT "revealed" that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided "critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war". The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died.

While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Ronald Reagan's Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Nor did the NYT dwell on the extreme cynicism and hypocrisy of President George Bush II's administration's citing of those same terrible atrocities--which were disregarded at the time by Washington--and those same weapons programs--which no longer exist, having been dismantled and destroyed in the decade following the 1991 Gulf War--to justify a massive new war against the people of Iraq.

A reader of the NYT article (or the tens of thousands of other articles written after the war drive against Iraq began in earnest soon after September 11, 2001) would have looked in vain for the fact that many of the US politicians and ruling class pundits who demanded war against Hussein--in particular, the one of the most bellicose of the Bush administration's "hawks", defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld--were up to their ears in Washington's efforts to cultivate, promote and excuse Hussein in the past...
http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

At the time of the invasion, the US claimed Iraq had WMDs in violation of UNSC resolutions.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2003
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours [/FONT]
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall
8:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

That last statement was a lie. It contradicted statements by Chief UN Weapon Inspector Hans Blix made two weeks earlier.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

The conclusion I come to after reading the report above isn't that Iraq continues to possess and conceal WMDs as Bush claimed, but that Iraq was cooperativing proactively and that Iraq was a few months away from being declared fre of WMDs

The US never had proof that Iraq possessed WMDs since 1995 in violation of previous resolutions. At no time since the invasion has the US ever found proof that Iraq possessed WMDs since being disarmed in 1995.

In order for the US to legally attack Iraq, they had to prove that Iraq was a WMD threat. Sine they couldn't and they attacked anyway, that makes the Iraq war a war crime and America's leaders war criminals.

In the interview, Mr. Annan was repeatedly asked whether the war was "illegal." "Yes," he finally said, "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."
http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=11953&Cr=iraq&Cr1

I can find plenty of evidence that since the 1991 ceasefire, the US repeatedly violated the terms of the ceasefire by bombing Iraq continuously and infiltrating UNSCOM with spies.

Harper has consistently backed these and other war crimes. His ability to commit war crimes has been limited by his minority party status. This election is about whether Canadians want a George Bush wanna-be Harper controlling Canada with a majority goverment.

I'm sure people like Z hope Canada becomes a rogue nation and threat to international peace like the US. But I'm hoping most Canadians will be thankful Harper lacked the power to send Canadian soldiers into Iraq back in 2003 and not give someone with a proven record of unconditionally supporting George Bush war crimes the power to commit similar war crimes.

 

[Northboy]

earth_as_one: I was referring to "Empowering average people" part specific to the quote. As for industries, government should be there to "regulate" to ensure the population is protected, (environmentally, legally, etc); but to run these industries -nope!! Governments have no business being in business. Governments need to step aside and let business do what they do best - innovate, invest, employ....

JMO

You think that the Conservatives care about empowering average people?
lol lol lol

Maybe where you are, but up here in Central BC, that's a joke!

They have dragged their feet on every progressive plan to help small business that has been put forth.

They're just a bunch of bean counters in my view.

 

[Spocq]

Violence generates Violence.

If we use violence to deal with situations then we teach others its acceptable to use violence when they believe its warranted. We should outlaw all violence and anyone found using it should be brought to justice. Especially in this day and age with the technology we have. I'm sure we could find ways to arrest those who break laws with out using violence. There should be an International police force that deals with law breakers anywhere in the world. This International police force should never use violence to in force the law.

--------------
A vote for green is a vote for good.
The truth will set us free!

 

[Zzarchov]

EAO,

Are you still trying to justify Genocide? Did those Kurds have it coming?

Why do you keep droning on about "WMD's", they are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what pretext or excuse or other bull**** political reasons are used to drum up support.

Iraq had been fair game since it enganged in Genocide. Period.

It doesn't matter if they said he had an army of satanic space chickens at his beck and call.


Genocidal dictator's can be overthrown. Thats not upsetting world peace, thats maintaining it. If nothing else, Iraq only has one government now.


You keep trying to dodge around the point and deal with meaningless red herrings.

Saddam Hussein was a genocidal war criminal who refused to go quietly. Regardless of what anyone else did or didn't do, he had to go down.

Trying to scream and throw temper tantrums and crying "But he did this and that too" or whatever else you come up with, doesn't expunge Saddams guilt.

 

[Spocq]

I don't believe for one second that using violence will bring peace. Maybe eventually when you kill billions of those who do wrong and trillions of those who are innocent in like 1000 years from now it will have succeeded. Violence generates violence, if we use violence to try and deal with those who do wrong we will just make things worse. but if we use respect and kindness it will happen much sooner with much less deaths.

----------------
A vote for green is a vote for good.
The truth will set us free!

 

[Zzarchov]

Not really. As much as we claim violence won't bring peace, its been the only method that consistently will lead to peace.

If there is anything in your life your willing to fight and die for (Liberty, your life or the life of your family) then you may have to fight for it, because sometimes situations arise where not everyone can go home a winner)

 

[Spocq]

I strongly disagree, this world is not at peace not even close and the more technology we gain the more powerful weapons we make the more damage can be done from violence. If we don't stop the violence it will stop us. We need to realize this before its to late. Only kindness, forgiveness, respect and understanding are things that will bring peace.

-------------
A vote for green is a vote for good.
The truth will set us free!

 

[earth_as_one]

EAO,

Are you still trying to justify Genocide? Did those Kurds have it coming?

Why do you keep droning on about "WMD's", they are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what pretext or excuse or other bull**** political reasons are used to drum up support.

Iraq had been fair game since it enganged in Genocide. Period.

It doesn't matter if they said he had an army of satanic space chickens at his beck and call.


Genocidal dictator's can be overthrown. Thats not upsetting world peace, thats maintaining it. If nothing else, Iraq only has one government now.


You keep trying to dodge around the point and deal with meaningless red herrings.

Saddam Hussein was a genocidal war criminal who refused to go quietly. Regardless of what anyone else did or didn't do, he had to go down.

Trying to scream and throw temper tantrums and crying "But he did this and that too" or whatever else you come up with, doesn't expunge Saddams guilt.

Your question is a "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" type question. Also if I was throwing a temper tantrum, I WOULD SWITCH TO CAPITALS!!!!


Unlike the US government, I've never supported Hussein. Unlike the US government, I never helped Hussein build WMDs. Unlike the US government, I never helped Hussein use WMDs.

References to Hussein's crimes committed 15-25 years before the US invaded and occupied Iraq were just propaganda and only an idiot would continue to believe that crap.

If Bush was a great humanitarian as you claim, then where was he during Hurricane Katrina? We are talking about the Bush the Texacutioner, not Mother Theresa. If Bush doesn't care about ordinary Americans, I doubt he cares about ordinary Iraqis. Lets put it this way, I doubt anyone would mistake Bush for one of the world's great humanitarians.

The US has no authority to attack other countries legally unless they are attacked. The US has no more legal authority than Iceland. Only the UNSC council can authorize the removal of a head of state and then only in very specific situations, none of which applied to Iraq.

Every justification the US gave for starting the Iraq war has been thoroughly discredited. The US led invasion of Iraq was a blatant war of aggression, which Harper supported and still supports.

The point of this topic is that a Harper majority would harm Canada and the world.

Harper's support of US war crimes against the Iraqi people which are estimated to have killed over a million people indicates how Harper would react to future US war crimes. He would unconditionally support them.

Neocons like Bush and Harper are dangerous. They are a threat to international peace. This election is a referendum on our country's future. If you support illegal wars of aggression like Harper then vote for Harper. If you believe Canada should respect international laws and treaties vote "Anyone But Conservative"... as in whoever has the best chance of defeating your local conservative candidate.