Re: US Presidents; an outside view WAS: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pete)
- From: "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 21:43:57 +1200
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:...
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9gf2g.8962$wK1.498400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pete Dashwood wrote:(This was not postable because the references were too long. I took
Holly's advice and edited it with Notepad on the desktop)
OK. Agree completely.I wish ours did not, I think we would be better off. A pistol is a
Completely agree. We are pretty lucky here in that regard. For the most
part
our cops are good. (They don't have guns and I think that helps with
attitude...). Of course, they have access to guns if required when
dealing
with armed offenders, but they don't carry guns as a matter of course.
pretty poor weapon anyway. I see nothing wrong with a police officer
carrying a shotgun or rifle when needed, but I think a proliferation of
pistols just makes the problem worse.
Being as close to the US as we are makes the problem even worse. Most
of the illegal weapons in Canada come over from the states, and we still
get lots of Americans insisting they have a right to carry a pistol in
Canada.
The idea that the benefit of protective laws only apply to the select
citizenry of one country is as good a way as any to bring that country
into disrepute, IMO.
Hmmm... not sure.
Notice I said "protective laws". Like the right to a lawyer, and the
right to be charged with a crime before being jailed. I did not say they
should be immune from law. If they break laws, then they should be
charged like anybody else. But arbitrary imprisonment? For anybody the
government does not like? If they are illegal impigrants, or working
illegally, then they should be charged and prosecuted. By due proccess,
not at the whim of an official.
Unfortunately, he is no Statesman. I agree with you that an opportunityWhat really pisses me off is that Bush *could* have done it right.
And the idea that an army can sell the constitution of a country by
going to another country and flouting every concept in that constitution
is extremely stupid, IMO.
Yes. There have been too many horror stories coming out of Iraq. I think
(hope) that lessons have been learned.
I really doubt it will bring about a similar
constitution in the country so invaded, and cannot comprehend how any
thinking person would believe so.
I agree with you here. It think it will take at least 100 years before a
stable democracy can be installed in Iraq. I don't think the West can or
should be there that long.
Pete.
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, and the people were welcoming the
Americans. Then they decided to play political games, and became as
represive as he was. They're body count per year is higher than his was.
was
lost.
If the kind of rights and laws that the Americans have at home had been
put in place, it is doubtfull we'd be where we are.
This thought lit me up. I hadn't thought about that before. It is so
simple.
Imagine if the indigenous population had received exactly the same rights
that an American citizen did... It would demonstrate a better system.
Sadly,
it was never going to happen... especially not while people were running
round blowing things up and killing soldiers every day. I guess the
priority
was simply containment and containment doesn't sit well with human
rights...
Pete.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: US Presidents; an outside view WAS: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pete)
- Next by Date: ROSCOE tutorial needed
- Previous by thread: Re: US Presidents; an outside view WAS: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pete)
- Next by thread: ROSCOE tutorial needed
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
