U.S. among top 4 executioners: Amnesty International

It's fixed no Karra. Of course if you had any real interest you could have found it yourself.

Excellent point about Cuba, RH. Oddly enough, the Cuban people are actually better off under Castro than they were under Batista. That's why Castro enjoys so much popular support, especially by those able to remember how bad it was before. As bad as Castro is, he is better than what was there before.

Amnesty International says there has been 10,000 civilian deaths in Irag. Why hasnt US media mentiond this at all? I watch CNN, i watch NBC news. Never ever do they talk about Iraqi civilain deaths.

Osama killed what 3000 civilians on 911, a few hundren in africa, 14 or 17 i think in the gulf. Bush has killed 10,000 in Iraq alone, thats not counting Afganistan.

Osama is already recognised as a criminal, Johnny. It is understood that if he is caught he will stand trial. He's being forced to hide in caves right now. A slightly different situation than Bush is in.

The real question you should be asking is why your government is commiting illegal acts, being tried and convicted for it based on the evidence, and your media isn't reporting on it. If my leaders were guilty of such things, I'd want it on the news every damned night.

Acualy rev thats kinda what is happening the sponsership deal. Our leaders screwed us good, but the media still reports on it all the time. we have freedom of the press up here.

Yeah, but mass murder isn't being committed in the sponsorship scandal. International laws are not being broken.

Our press is freer than the press in the US, Adam. That's largely because the CBC provides a balance to corporate-owned media outlets. Even with that, we are seeing the same kind of concentration of press ownership and the same kind of limited views that the US is. It's not as bad, but it sure isn't good.

Thats what i was trying to say, i know are press has more freedom then in the USA, just using the sponsership scandle as an example.

It's encouraging that its hard to find a really bad example. We do aid and abet other countries in their crimes on occasion, but overall Canada is pretty good. At times that we haven't been, our press has picked up on and reported it.

for example the bullshit that got the best canadian army regiment disbanded....oh, and somalia inquiry too....

The means to real peace. No government admits any more that it keeps an army to satisfy occasionally the desire for conquest. Rather the army is supposed to serve for defense, and one invokes the morality that approves of self-defense. But this implies one's own morality and the neighbor's immorality; for the neighbor must be thought of as eager to attack and conquer if our state must think of means of self-defense. Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring an army imply that our neighbor, who denies the desire for conquest just as much as does our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps an army only for reasons of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a cunning criminal who would like nothing better than to overpower a harmless and awkward victim without any fight. Thus all states are now ranged against each other: they presuppose their neighbor's bad disposition and their own good disposition. This presuppostiion, however, is inhumane, as bad as war and worse. At bottom, indeed, it is itself the challenge and the cause of wars, because, as I have said, it attributes the immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes a hostile disposition and act. We must abjure the doctrine of the army as a means of self-defense just as completely as the desire for conquests.

And perhaps the great day will come when a people, distinguished by wars and victories and by the highest development of a military order and intelligence, and accustomed to make the heaviest sacrifices for these things, will exclaim of its own free will, "We break the sword," and will smash its entire military establishment down to its lowest foundations. Rendering onself un-armed when one had been the best-armed, out of a height of feeling--that is the means to real peace, which must always rest on a peace of mind; whereas the so-called armed peace, as it now exists in all countries, is the absence of peace of mind. One trusts neither oneself nor one's neighbor and , half from hatred, half from fear, does not lay down arms. Rather perish than hate and fear, and twice rather perish than make oneself hated and feared--this must someday become the highest maxim for every single common-wealth too.

Our liberal representatives, as is well known, lack the time for reflecting on the nature of man: else they would know that they work in vain when they work for a "gradual decrease of the military burden." Rather, only when this kind of need has become greatest will the kind of god be nearest who alone can help here. The tree of war-glory can only be destroyed all at once, by a stroke of lightning: but lightning, as indeed you know, comes from a cloud--and from up high.

.....this is why there will never be peace, because people live in fear, but it's a great idea to how there could be peace....

I guess we'll start at the beginning, Johnny.

First of all, read the link. War crimes were commited by the US in Afghanistan. They are detailed there. None of that absolves anybody else for their crimes, just as their crimes do not absolve the US. Think of it like a turf war between bikers? Is the Rock Machine innocent because the Angels did it too? No.

The same goes for Iraq. If you think back, it was us "liberals" who were speaking out against the sanctions, saying that something effective needed to be done. It was the US and Britain keeping that from happening. That little fact runs all the way from the Iran/Iraq War and the gassing of the Kurds (under Reagan) through the Gulf War, through Bush I's actions after the Gulf War, through Clinton's refusal to do anything but drop the occasional bomb, right up to today. Of course we were ther ones saying that something had to be done in Afghanistan because of the human rights abuses going on there back when your government was still giving them guns.