(V):

rod03801: Right.. so it an assumption.

Gotcha!!

(V): Um. I said "I've seen".... and "apparently".. Nothing about "think" or "know"

rod03801: ?? You think or know??

Übergeek 바둑이: Well after a neo con saying that being educated and being the President was basically incompatible.

.... makes you think.. or not if you are a neo con!!

Übergeek 바둑이: Nah, I've seen plenty of left wingers who apparently haven't even graduated high school.

lizrising:

"How many are professional left wingers and how many are regular folks?" I never knew left wing was a profession. I suppose you need a university degree and a license to be a left winger!

Oh, Billll. Try to make your fake footage less obvious next time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRcmeA1k-ik

Tuesday:

This cracks me up. It is not the first homophobic religious nut to be caught being a hypocrite. I suppose he can blame pornography for making him "pee in a bottle". He should go into the hall of fame for lame excuses.

Tuesday: Guilty until proven innocent, huh?

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

...."It's the Inequality, Stupid"

RBS created their near collapse (only prevented by Joe Voter bailing them out via the UK government) by neglecting to obtain complete accounts of the bank they and other European banks were buying as a consortium. In the accounts of why they did not obtain the completes accounts of that bank, it was revealed that it was a done deal even without such vital info. Those accounts would have shown that the bank had a serious bad debt problem that left it for all accounts ... bankrupt.

The collapse of RBS would have caused a collapse of the world banking system.

And yet.. the banks say we cannot tell them to ensure (via a change in their bonus system) such mistakes do not by greed be done again. We are told by the banks they are angry we are taxing them..... to go into a fund to cover any more greedy bankers playing with Joe Plumbers money.

Imagine not being able to access your money....

That's about £3200....... Ok explain the economy of the banks still "bailed out" paying billions in bonuses (that's £1,000,000,000+) and yet holding the economies of the world to ransom saying....

.... "If you make us pay for our mess and stop us from profiting while Joe Voter suffers... we'll leave and cause your economies more harm.. we don't care!!"

********************
Just for clarity

Artful Dodger: I made a error... golly .. oh dear. I corrected it now.. Thankyou!!

Must stop mutli tasking!! I'm only a man

What about UK company British Gas who yet again makes record profits while their customers say "why are our bills going up so much more than inflation"..

.. They would move... but all the other energy companies are doing the same.

How big are share holder functions these days?

Artful Dodger: That's about £3200....... Ok explain the economy of the banks still "bailed out" paying billions in bonuses (that's £1,000,000,000+) and yet holding the economies of the world to ransom saying....

.... "If you make us pay for our mess and stop us from profiting while Joe Voter suffers... we'll leave and cause your economies more harm.. we don't care!!"

Condoleeza Rice's former employer Chevron-Texaco was slapped with a 9.5 billion dollar fine for polluting the rainforest in Ecuador. Chevron is trying to weasel their way out of paying trying to pass the blame onto Texaco and Petroecuador. It just never occurred to them that the pollution that Texaco left behind would ever come back to haunt them. It is easy to acquire a company and then assume that if they did dirty things in a Third World country then those deliberate mistakes would never be prosecuted by the law. Well, I am sure Chevron has another option: leave Ecuador without paying and then open shop in another Third World country!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/indigenous-ecuadoran-woman-humbles-us-oil-giant-20110223-060924-978.html

... I wish I could post a link to a rather accurate video explaining the Daily Mail.

.. unfortunately the swearing involved in the comical video about Hitler's fav UK paper is too strong to post the link.

Artful Dodger: One of the reasons unions started as a result of exploitation by the bosses. Just as did the Suffragettes arise from the lack of votes for women.

alilsassy: President Raygun, the "Star Wars" President.. you've not heard of him??

Tuesday: "comparing Obama to Regan" who's Regan?

A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This is known as representative democracy. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term, representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.[48]

The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden (1849), declared that the definition of republic was a "political question" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of republic. The opinion of the court from In re Duncan[49] (1891) held that the "right of the people to choose their government" is also part of the definition. Due to the 1875 and 1891 court decisions establishing basic definition, in the first version (1892) of the Pledge of Allegiance, which included the word republic, and like Article IV which refers to a Republican form of government, the basic definition of republic is implied and continues to do so in all subsequent versions, including the present edition, by virtue of its consistent inclusion.

Beyond these basic definitions the word republic has a number of other connotations. W. Paul Adams observes that republic is most often used in the United States as a synonym for state or government, but with more positive connotations than either of those terms.[50] Republicanism is often referred to as the founding ideology of the United States. Traditionally scholars believed this American republicanism was a derivation of the liberal ideologies of John Locke and others developed in Europe.

The political philosophy of republicanism initiated by Machiavelli was thought to have had little impact on the founders of the United States. In the 1960s and 1970s a revisionist school lead by the likes of Bernard Bailyn began to argue that republicanism was just as or even more important than liberalism in the creation of the United States.[51] This issue is still much disputed and scholars like Kramnick completely reject this view.[52]

Artful Dodger:

>A pure democracy is a weak government.

It is impossible to tell since that government has never existed in practice. Direct democracy remains something that was never tried in any country anyswhere. Democracy always was a priviledge of the rich and powerful. The working class were always there to merely cast a vote and surrender political power to a wealthy and powerful elite. It was like that from the beginnings of representative democracy in the late 18th century and continues like that in the present.

> I think what we have is good to a point. The problem lies where special interest
> groups can dictate (via - "vote for this and we'll vote for you!") policy that effects
> and entire population. But the Dems tried that sort of nonsense last year and many
> of them are booted out of office as a result.

And the Reps never did? I suppose the conservative right is really, really immune to special interest groups and lobbyists!

Artful Dodger:

Maybe citizens should push for a referendum on the issue. Then, there are so many issues that deserve a referendum. Health care, defense spending, bank bailouts, war declarations, etc. The great weakness of representative democracy is that it leaves the decision making in the hands of a handful of individuals. It is funny that under 1,000 people decide the fate of 300,000,000 others. I suppose representative democracy must be better than direct democracy.

Artful Dodger: Says someone who has never lived in a multicultural society.

The area I live in is a great mix of cultures. Muslims, Christians, Hindu's, Sikhs, Turkish, Chinese.. even Aussies!!.. We all get along... as we all in our area have respect for each other.

.. And we get a great selection and variety of shops and services based on the various cultures... complimentary medicines, clothes, foods (if you are like me and love cooking a great thing) ... and the shops have transformed certain areas from nearly empty shopping areas to bustling areas of trade which boosts the income of traditional British shops purely from the likes of passing trade.

Artful Dodger:

> A cultural mosaic is a country divided.

Divided in what sense? I doubt Canadians would see their country as divided. Divisions in Canada have more to do with regionalism than with culture per se. The biggest division is between "Francophone Canada" and "Anglophone Canada", and that has as much to do with local politicians wanting power for themselves than with language and culture. Francophones outside Quebec are more ambivalent about separation. Outside Quebec Canada is unified not by language and culture, but by values.

Well, in my experience people who fear multiculturalism usually are those who have lived in a culturally homogenous environment all their life. The fear stems from fear of change more than a fear of losing cultural identity. Most countries are a lot more multicultural than they would admit. There are always regional differences, differences in languages and dialects, differences in food, dress, music, etc. I doubt all countries are entirely homogeneous.

Übergeek 바둑이: In France, the scarf is authorized. The niqab isn't authorized because we don't see the person at all, even not the eyes.
The problem began when some young girls, at school, said : " I can't do sport, because of my religion ". Here, school is public, so the government didn't want differences between students : each one had to do sport (except because a physical problem).

Tuesday:

Yes, point g is based on the Abu Graib problems. There were also some cases in extraordinary rendition in which prisoners were sodomized during interrogation. However, when those things happened, it is unclear how high in the chain of command knowledge went. There are claims of these things being known by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. However, nobody can prove that. One thing is certain. As the ultimate commanders of the military, the cabinet has its share of responsibility.

Artful Dodger:

> French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed,
> joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.

Being in Canada all I can say is that multiculturalism can mean a lot of things. Going out in the street here is like going to the UN. I drive a bus (city transit) for a living. In the bus I can hear 20 languages spoken at the same time. People here rarely care. Racism exists (as everywhere) and once in a while there will be trouble, particularly in some high schools where young kids get into fights motivated by race. People are sometimes discriminated when applying for jobs. However, legal protections are relativley strict. People here are all "something-Canadian". For example, French-Canadian, German-Canadian, etc. It is generally understood that people are proud of their individual communities, as well as of being Canadian.

Canada moved away from the "melting pot" approach in the 1960s and 1970s. Instead they talk of this "multicultural mosaic". All cultures and races trying to get along. It works most of the time, although there are problems such as discrimination against first nations people (natives) and blacks.

I can also understand how the French feel since much of their immigration comes from North Africa, particularly Algeria. When that happens, immigrants become clearly visible. I doubt the French would have so much of a problem with Latin American immigrants as they have with the Islamic minority. It has to do with cultural and religious similarity.

All I can say is that attempting to force people to melt into a society usually fails. If anything, it makes people more entrenched in the feeling of isolation that immigrants sometimes feel. Forcing moslems to abandon a woman's head dress might sound fine on the surface, but in reality it is a bad idea because it will just make moslems feel targetted and it will make them take a more radical stance. If the French had approached differently, they would have established rules.

For example, bus drivers here wear uniforms. Sikh bus drivers are allowed to keep on their turbans, as long as they conform to the colour of the uniform. So they wear a blue turban that matches the colour of the uniform shirt. They are not allowed to carry their traditional ritual knives. It is a compromise that works. The drivers don't feel discriminated. They are simply made to realize that things are a little different.

If woman wants to wear a head dress at work, she can do so, but with rules. For example, it has to be white. It should not obscure the mouth, nose and neck. It would have been a suitable compromise. You have your culture, and attempt to adapt to ours as well.

Well, if multiculturalism is a failure, then what is the alternative? Forcing people to adapt? How? With prison sentences? Expulsion from the country? Firing them from their jobs?

Artful Dodger:

> The claim being made here is that Bush is a war criminal. My ONLY question has to do
> with Obama. Is he also a war criminal? If yes, how so. If no, why not.

The U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare (Field Manual 27-10) states:

" 498. Crimes Under International Law Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise:
a. Crimes against peace.
b. Crimes against humanity.
c. War crimes."

Now we turn to a definition of crimes against peace.
"A crime against peace, in international law, refers to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing"."

The Bush administration can be justified in the war in Afghanistan since Al Qaida attacked the United States (9-11). However, the war in Iraq is a different matter. While the administration tried to make a case for going to war, by refusing to act with UN support, and then using manufactured and faulty information deliberately, the Bush (and Blair) administrations commited a war against peace. Barrack Obama has tried to end the conflict in Iraq. Obama cannot be blamed of a war against peace.

Now we turn to the issue of war crimes:
"The basic rules of International Humanitarian Law:
1. Persons hors de combat (bystanders) and those not taking part in hostilities shall be protected and treated humanely.
2. It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat.
3. The wounded and sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross," or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.
4. Captured combatants and civilians must be protected against acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.
5. No one shall be subjected to torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment.
6. Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare.
7. Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives."

Although one cannot conclusively prove some of these:

Considering the conflict in Iraq:
The Bush administration violated principles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Whether the Obama administration continued with some of those violations is yet to be seen.

Considering the conflict in Afghanistan:
The Bush administration violated principles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The Obama administration has apparently violated principles 6 and 7 by using drones to attack targets that were not always military.

Well, on this point we can say that almost every war involves violations of International Humanitarian Law. Once the military are in control, they throw those principles out the window, and then go on to make excuses for their actions.

We move onto crimes against humanity. For that we look at the definition. The International Criminal Court in the Hague gives a definition:

" For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:[17]
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health."

The Bush administration violated a, e, f and g knowingly. Abu Graib, Guantanamo, and extraordinary rendition violated some of those statutes at some point or another during the course of the war. The Obama administration has exposed some of those things, in particular extraordinary rendition by the CIA. However, the Obama administration has not punished any of those involved and some of those involved in those crimes have actually been promoted and now advise the president on national security matters.

All in all, one could argue that by using drones and harming civilians, the Obama administration violated some of the principles of International Humanitarian Law. In practice, who is going to prosecute? It is like the Bush administration. If people in the Bush administration commited crimes, who is going to prosecute? A law is meaningless because in war there is such a thing as "The Law of the Victor". Those who win the war make the laws, and if they break a law, nobody prosecutes them.