Its not a lack of police to fight drug cartels which is the cause of the violence. That analysis is hollow. You are leaving out the devastating consequences of NAFTA and imperialism on these countries.

Poverty and unemployment have only worsened as a result of subsidies going towards big agrobussiness instead of local farmers. This is what leads to crime. Its a reaction by the working class getting even more fucked. When you can't get any $ by growing corn and instead have the chance to make $ selling drugs, yeah, you do it.

It isn't a coincidence that the majority of immigrants come from countries that have had dictators and death squads with the support of the US. Guatamala, El Salvador, Mexico. Destroyed economies create migrants which are CHEAP LABOR. Add to this the criminalization of immigrants with AZ's SB1070 and GA's copycat HB87. The AZ bill was pretty much written by Corrections Corporation of America, a private prison corporation which gets $200 per bed a night.

Its all part of the imperative of profit, the inherent violence of capitalism, duh
----
Additional reading:

http://blog.sojo.net/2010/10/28/prison-and-profits-the-politics-of-az%E2%80%99s-sb1070-bill-revealed/

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/25/harvest_of_empire_new_book_exposes
"And then there's this from independent journalist Zafar Bangash:

"The CIA, as Cockburn and (Jeffrey) St Clair reveal, had been in this business right from the beginning. In fact, even before it came into existence, its predecessors, the OSS and the Office of Naval Intelligence, were involved with criminals. One such criminal was Lucky Luciano, the most notorious gangster and drug trafficker in America in the forties."

The CIA's involvement in drug trafficking closely dovetails America's adventures overseas - from Indo-China in the sixties to Afghanistan in the eighties....As Alfred McCoy states in his book: Politics of Heroin: CIA complicity in the Global Drug Trade, beginning with CIA raids from Burma into China in the early fifties, the agency found that 'ruthless drug lords made effective anti-communists." ("CIA peddles drugs while US Media act as cheerleaders", Zafar Bangash, Muslimedia, January 16-31, 1999)

And, this from author William Blum:

"ClA-supported Mujahedeen rebels ... engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting against the Soviet-supported government," writes historian William Blum. "The Agency's principal client was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the leading druglords and a leading heroin refiner. CIA-supplied trucks and mules, which had carried arms into Afghanistan, were used to transport opium to laboratories along the Afghan/Pakistan border. The output provided up to one half of the heroin used annually in the United States and three-quarters of that used in Western Europe....""


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18877

>> ^gwiz665:

Alcohol is not the killer, the gun is. You can't kill anyone with alcohol, you need the car (or a weapon).
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^gwiz665:
This is why amateurs should not have guns and this is why gun laws in the states are also crazy.
Might as well outlaw alcohol too then. Idiot drunks kill people on the highway, so obviously no one can be trusted to drink.
On a side note, I know an "Alcohol Enforcement Officer"... drinks more than anyone I've ever met, and not in a good way.



the same could be said for guns. it takes someone pulling the trigger to kill.

i do want to add a bit of commentary on these developing stories. between this and the jose guerera case, both cases piss me right the fuck off and heres why. In both instances you have an overwhelming force subduing another. in this case, gun toting cop vs knife toting dude. in jose's case, an entire swat team vs one armed man. the end result was death, fucking wrongful, wasteful death.

now having said that, the commentary i would like to add is this: i know that in armed conflict and escalating situations such as these (presumably, even hypothetically, ie, he could have charged the cop with the knife off screen and an attacker can close distance in most cases faster than the shooter can react and fire) it takes steel nerves and lightning reflexes reinforced by training to make the decision to fire or not fire.

........however, when i was in afghanistan, i found myself in the middle of a legit "mexican standoff". long story short, my PCC team were to accompany the scout platoon to escort a rogue afghan border patrol police general back to our FOB to speak with his superiors. When we arrived to our PCC compound we found that he was there, along with over 100 of his loyals, preparing to mount a raid of their own (they were usually running illegal checkpoints, shit like that). Naturally when they figured out that we were there to detain their leader (in their eyes, our direct orders were to not detain but persuade him to come with us, if he refused we were to leave without incident). My CO talked with the general and persuaded him to willingly come with us.....but to his loyals, we were capturing him. within seconds, the guards they had in their towers had oriented their crew served weapons inwards, ANP loyals were loading their RPG's with armor piercers and taking fighting positions behind buildings oriented at us, you could hear dozens of ak's "racking" (chambering a round). There was over a hundred of them and less than 20 of us. Had it exploded into a firefight, we certainly woulved fucked all shit up.......but few, if any, of us were leaving alive. all it wouldve taken was one round to go off from either side to fully escalate that encounter to a full on gun battle. fortunately we kept our cool (as did the anp loyals), assessed the situation, navigated the battle space, reinforced by our training which emphasizes self control, discipline, and situational awareness, and we were able to diffuse the situation without incident. Not a single round was fired. and we had accomplished our mission (btw turns out the general had been hoarding police gun stocks, by the thousands, and had cached them at his house and was selling them off to taliban)

now my point being if i and the members of my team had the intestinal fortitude and mental tenacity to diffuse that highlyvolatile situation without incident, especially considering the higher stakes (this was in the middle of a fucking war, not in someones neighborhood or on a crosswalk), so to speak.......what is your fucking excuse Tucson swat team? what is your fucking excuse, cop in this video?

Is not all paper money supposed to be backed by gold to start with.


Assuming this is a question without a question mark, the answer is no - all national currencies have been fiat money for a while now (not just US dollars).

From the video: "The United States should welcome the self determination of Africans". Guess what, it does. That's why it supports rebels not getting massacred by a horrible, moronic dictator named Qadaffi.

And I hate these "secret motivation" conspiracies. Remember how the Afghan war was all about oil, then a pipeline, then minerals, then drugs or illegal arms sales or something? Is it the same people coming up with these new dumb ideas? How come we never get a "oh yeah, guess I was wrong about all that" video? Does anyone still believe the stupid, stupid Afghanistan war-for-pipeline theory? Lots of people did. Do they experience any kind of cognitive dissonance now that the pipeline remains unbuilt? Or do they just not remember?

And the theories are pointless to begin with when we have perfectly believable explanations right in front of us. No big secrets or surprises, just human nature. For example, Afghanistan: Bush (and a good percentage of Americans) wanted a war mostly out of vengeance (and general hate), government thought it would be a huge win politically, Bush honestly thought he'd kill some terrorists and be remembered as a hero, and was certainly encouraged by a military contractors who'd make a killing (and did). That sounds like enough reasons to me.

Similarly, the humanitarian atrocity of a dictatorial government bombing its own populace sounds like enough motivation to want to help those being killed.

So they have 'evidence' that no one is allowed to see and that wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

Come back and look at the real world. Arrest warrants for Osama were already issued in 1998 for murder. He was formally indicted by an American court that listened to first hand witness testimony and satellite phone records for the embassy bombings long before 9/11 ever happened. He was unquestionably the leader of Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization responsible for 10's of thousands of civilian deaths, even if you exclude the victims of 9/11 from the count. And you still have the audacity to question if Osama was guilty?

What is wrong with you?!?!

As to 9/11 there is no if around Osama's guilt there either, even though it matters not to his guilt as a mass murdering terrorist leader. Ahmad Shah Massoud was the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance. He spent most of 2001 warning Europe and the west that Al Qaeda was planning something 'bigger' than it had done before against America, and that it would happen soon. On September 10th, 2001 he was killed by assassins working for Al Qaeda. It's worth noting that Ahmad Shah Massoud was also one of the few people that the Afghan people could have been united around in a push to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But I suppose you would call that circumstantial evidence, right? It's pure coincidence that the man warning of the attacks of 9/11 and able to help in retaliating after was assassinated the day before the 9/11 attacks were carried out! So if that is insufficient, when Hamid Gil interview Osama Bin Laden AFTER the 9/11 attacks, Osama spent a great deal of time and effort showing all the evidence that he and only he could have been the one that planned and coordinated the attacks.

No, you don't see that whether at war or not, you don't just start treating people like sub humans.
No, you don't see. Killing Osama as part of a military operation against a terrorist leader is different from a routine traffic stop. In a military operation ethics around killing go as far as offering a chance for surrender when it is possible to do so without risking your soldiers lives. If that offer of surrender is refused, bullets fly. Do really advocate for a world where the American's should have called up the Pakistani police and asked them to go knock on the door and ask Osama to come out? That leads to dead police officers, and Osama's escape. Assuming of course the police officers sent weren't sympathetic to Osama and called him up so he could leave even before the police arrive. That kind of failure is NOT respecting human life. It directly results in the continued killing of Pakistani civilians by Osama's terrorist network.

You seem to fancy yourself as someone who's objections to seeing Osama dead are based on a respect for life. You need to take that thought and give it an additional 5 minutes of critical analysis. Every day Osama remained free was another day that he directly provided support and leadership to the intentional killing of innocent civilians.

Oil has never been a legitimate reason to go to war!

http://videosift.com/video/Robert-Newmans-History-of-Oil >> ^bcglorf:

>> ^notarobot:
Try not to think of the Afghan mission as a war, but as the Afghan pipeline construction project.

Right, there was no legitimate other reason for it. The WTC and multiple other attacks for years before that were all just orchestrated by the pipeline puppet masters, right?

>> ^notarobot:

Try not to think of the Afghan mission as a war, but as the Afghan pipeline construction project.


Right, there was no legitimate other reason for it. The WTC and multiple other attacks for years before that were all just orchestrated by the pipeline puppet masters, right?

Try not to think of the Afghan mission as a war, but as the Afghan pipeline construction project.

Uh, where exactly did Christian influences play a role in that? >> ^Reefie:

>> ^EMPIRE:
yeah... arabic mentality is not exactly the most respectful towards women (surprise, surprise!).

Wasn't always like that so it's not fair to generalise. Take a look at how women used to be treated in Afghanistan, they were worshipped and were easily the equals of men (worth also pointing out that the Koran classes men and women as equals). It's only since the end of the second world war when religions such as Christianity and Islam worked to change the perceived role of women in Afghan society so that the last half a decade has radically altered the standing of women in that country. King Amanullah worked very hard to promote women's empowerment in the early 20th century, but all his work has been undone, and from a historical perspective we only need to look towards the Christian and Taliban influences at work in that country to understand how it all got fucked up.

I wasn't talking about how women were treated in the past, or will be treated in the future. I'm talking about the current mentality towards women in most arabic countries.

Sure there's still a lot of discrimination against women in almost every country in the world. But in arabic countries it's particularly bad.

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^EMPIRE:
yeah... arabic mentality is not exactly the most respectful towards women (surprise, surprise!).

Wasn't always like that so it's not fair to generalise. Take a look at how women used to be treated in Afghanistan, they were worshipped and were easily the equals of men (worth also pointing out that the Koran classes men and women as equals). It's only since the end of the second world war when religions such as Christianity and Islam worked to change the perceived role of women in Afghan society so that the last half a decade has radically altered the standing of women in that country. King Amanullah worked very hard to promote women's empowerment in the early 20th century, but all his work has been undone, and from a historical perspective we only need to look towards the Christian and Taliban influences at work in that country to understand how it all got fucked up.

>> ^EMPIRE:
yeah... arabic mentality is not exactly the most respectful towards women (surprise, surprise!).


Wasn't always like that so it's not fair to generalise. Take a look at how women used to be treated in Afghanistan, they were worshipped and were easily the equals of men (worth also pointing out that the Koran classes men and women as equals). It's only since the end of the second world war when religions such as Christianity and Islam worked to change the perceived role of women in Afghan society so that the last half a decade has radically altered the standing of women in that country. King Amanullah worked very hard to promote women's empowerment in the early 20th century, but all his work has been undone, and from a historical perspective we only need to look towards the Christian and Taliban influences at work in that country to understand how it all got fucked up.

No matter how well intentioned, I think military interventions nowadays that aim to dethrone an authoritarian regime are practically guaranteed to fail.

I think that depends on goals and commitments. If removing the regime is the only goal, Iraq has been a complete and unconditional success. If providing a stable and safe state for the local population is the goal, then Iraq has been a complete and unconditional failure. If providing the local population with a better future is the goal, then Iraq has been a success.

My ideal scenario, which I admitted no nation would ever commit to, was not just regime change, but regime change followed by nation building. Both the Iraq and Afghan conflicts have absolutely refused to take any part in nation building exercises and instead have tried to jump straight from authoritarian rule to functioning self sufficient local democracy.

Point is, military interventions don't work in removing despotic governments simply because something can and will go wrong.

Yet in many cases removing despotic governments can still be better for the locals, even with all that can go wrong. Even with all the grandiose mistakes and failures in Iraq, the nation has a better future than it would have without the invasion. Without the invasion there are only two alternatives, and Iraq still under Saddam which is worse. The other is an Iraq not under Saddam, but that did it without foreign intervention. I guarentee the civil warring in Iraq now is nothing to the bloodbath that there would've been toppling Saddam's Baath internally. Iraq is absolutely not a great place for it's people yet, but it is a better one than it would've been without the invasion. I'd argue the same would be true for both Burma and North Korea. Though North Korean locals would be benefiting at the cost of absolutely enormous and unfathomable losses on the part of South Korea.

So it's been two years. I hope everyone is doing well. A little older, a little wiser? Better, faster, stronger, smarter?

It looks like @NetRunner and @dystopianfuturetoday are still up to their old haunts. Learn anything in the last two years? History impart any lessons? A lot has happened since then. War, recession, inflation, destruction, pollution, the devaluing of the dollar.

Maybe meet up in another two years to see if anything more has changed? That is, if it is even possible. By then, we may have already lost net neutrality and the world wide web will a corporatized splash screen. "Choose your website from the following options." Worse yet, this site could be bought out by DynCorp and transformed into another corporate puppet ala Digg.com.

That is, if any of us even have jobs or savings to pay the internet bill. What with the massive inflation from the multi-trillion dollar "bailouts," handouts, QE3, QE4, QE5 etc. Ever pay attention to your supermarket bill over the years? What will the dollar be worth in two years if it has already decreased in value by upwards of 50% in the last few years? How about employment after the looming double-dip, recession, or second great depression. How many of the posters here will even have jobs anymore?

One thing is for certain, there is nothing special about American labor. China is in the lead in education, America is barely in the top 20. The average salary in America is somewhere in the $40,000 range. In China, less than $7000. I hope you've enjoyed the run while it lasted. Be prepared to swallow your pride along with your massive pay-cut as you realize the only thing sustaining this country is reckless consumerism. What do they tell you every Black Friday? Spend, Spend, Spend? Buy what you can't afford so you can be paid what you don't deserve. Nothing exists in nature "above unity," not even the American dream.

Forget the economy, what will our government be like in 2 years? Already, we sell little boys to afghan leaders and our presidential candidates threaten journalists with murder. Perhaps worse is all of our presidential candidates are identical. "Do you want the red or blue pill? They both taste the same." We torture our own citizens with solitary confinement for 6 months without trail. We've killed over 1 million civilians in Iraq, 15% of the way to our own holocaust. Corporations lay waste to our environment with no consequence. When they commit fraud, we give them billion dollar bonuses instead of criminal charges.

The internet is the primary source of dissent and "free thought" in the modern era. Two things diametrically opposed to corporate and governmental dictatorship. You forget because your mind doesn't think on large time scales, but the internet is just a baby. How long has it really been around, 20 years? That's not even old enough to drink alcohol. You've already seen what governments can do to the internet in China. You've already seen what corporations can do to the internet in Canada. How long before that becomes the norm and not the exception? You take it for granted what you have, then they turn your head while they steal it piece-by-piece. How often did you turn your head, when it wasn't yours they took?

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Yeah, things have been going quite well "as is." Keep you finger's crossed for the next new political "savior" and I'll see you in another 2 years...maybe.

Afghans are a bunch of campers that's the only way they can win. Camp camp camp. noobs.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 001258

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/22/2018
TAGS: PREL PGOV CA
SUBJECT: THE U.S. IN THE CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTION -- NOT!

REF: OTTAWA 1216

Classified By: PolMinCouns Scott Bellard, reason 1.4 (d)

¶1. (C) Summary. Despite the overwhelming importance of the
U.S. to Canada for its economy and security, bilateral
relations remain the proverbial 900 pound gorilla that no one
wants to talk about in the 2008 Canadian federal election
campaigns. This likely reflects an almost inherent
inferiority complex of Canadians vis-a-vis their sole
neighbor as well as an underlying assumption that the
fundamentals of the relationship are strong and unchanging
and uncertainty about the outcome of the U.S. Presidential
election. End Summary.

¶2. (C) The United States is overwhelmingly important to
Canada in ways that are unimaginable to Americans. With over
$500 billion in annual trade, the longest unsecured border in
the world, over 200 million border crossings each year, total
investment in each other's countries of almost $400 billion,
and the unique North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD)
partnership to ensure continental security, excellent
bilateral relations are essential to Canada's well being.
Canadians are, by and large, obsessed with U.S. politics --
especially in the 2008 Presidential race -- and follow them
minutely (with many Canadians even wishing they could vote in
this U.S. election rather than their own, according to a
recent poll). U.S. culture infiltrates Canadian life on
every level. 80 pct of Canadians live within 100 miles of
the border, and Canadians tend to visit the U.S. much more
regularly than their American neighbors come here.

¶3. (C) Logically, the ability of a candidate, or a party,
or most notably the leader of a party successfully to manage
this essential relationship should be a key factor for voters
to judge in casting their ballots. At least so far in the
2008 Canadian federal election campaign, it is not. There
has been almost a deafening silence so far about foreign
affairs in general, apart from Prime Minister Stephen
Harper's pledge on September 10 that Canadian troops would
indeed leave Afghanistan in 2011 according to the terms of
the March 2008 House of Commons motion, commenting that "you
have to put an end on these things." The Liberals -- and
many media commentators -- seized on this as a major
Conservative "flip flop," with Liberal Party leader Stephane
Dion noting on September 10 that "I have been calling for a
firm end date since February 2007" and that "the
Conservatives can't be trusted on Afghanistan; they can't be
trusted on the climate change crisis; they can't be trusted
on the economy." He has returned in subsequent days to the
Conservative record on the environment and the economy, but
has not pursued the Afghan issue further. All three
opposition party leaders joined in calling for the government
to release a Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the
full costs of the Afghan mission, which PM Harper agreed to
do, with some apparent hesitation. However, no other foreign
policy issues have yet risen to the surface in the campaigns,
apart from New Democrat Party leader Jack Layton opining on
September 7 that "I believe we can say good-bye to the George
Bush era in our own conduct overseas."

¶4. (C) The U.S. market meltdown has provided some fodder
for campaign rhetoric, with the Conservatives claiming their
earlier fiscal and monetary actions had insulated Canada from
much of the economic problems seen across the border.
(Comment: there is probably more truth in the fact that the
Canadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
QCanadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
U.S. and other foreign markets, and instead concentrates on
the domestic market. The Canadian financial sector has also
been quite conservative in its lending and investment
choices. End comment.) PM Harper has insisted that the
"core" Canadian economy and institutions were sound, while
promising to work closely with "other international players"
(i.e., not specifically the U.S.) to deal with the current
problems. He warned on September 19 that "voters will have
to decide who is best to govern in this period of economic
uncertainty -- do you want to pay the new Liberal tax? Do
you want the Liberals to bring the GST back to 7%?" The
Liberals have counter-claimed that Canada is now the "worst
performing economy in the G8," while noting earlier Liberal
governments had produced eight consecutive balanced budgets
and created about 300,000 new jobs annually between 1993 and
¶2005. The NDP's Layton argued on September 16 that these
economic woes are "the clearest possible warning that North
American economies under conservative governments, in both
Canada and the United States, are on the wrong track," but
promised only that an NDP government would institute a
"top-to-bottom" review of Canada's regulatory system -- not
delving into bilateral policy territory.

¶5. (C) On the environment, Liberal leader Dion, in
defending his "Green Shift" plan on September 11, noted that

OTTAWA 00001258 002 OF 002

"both Barack Obama and John McCain are in favor of putting a
price on carbon. Our biggest trading partner is moving
toward a greener future and we need to do so too." PM Harper
has stuck to the standard Conservative references to the
Liberal plan as a "carbon tax, which will hit every consumer
in every sector" and claimed on September 16 that, under
earlier Liberal governments, "greenhouse gas emissions
increased by more than 30 percent, one of the worst records
of industrialized countries." NDP leader Layton argued
that, on the environment, PM Harper "has no plan" while
"Dion's plan is wrong and won't work," unlike the NDP plan to
reward polluters who "clean up their act and imposing
penalties on those that don't," which he said had also been
"proposed by both U.S. Presidential candidates, Barack Obama
and John McCain."

¶6. (C) NAFTA? Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative?
Border crossing times? The future of NORAD? Canada's role
in NATO? Protection of Canadian water reserves? Canadian
sovereignty in the Arctic and the Northwest Passage? At
least among the leaders of the major parties, these issues
have not come up so far in the campaigns, although they seize
much public attention in normal times. Even in Ontario and
Quebec, with their long and important borders with the U.S.,
the leadership candidates apparently so far have not ventured
to make promises to woo voters who might be disgruntled with
U.S. policies and practices. However, these may still emerge
as more salient issues at the riding level as individual
candidates press the flesh door to door, and may also then
percolate up to the leadership formal debates on October 1
and 2.

¶7. (C) Why the U.S. relationship appears off the table, at
least so far, is probably be due to several key factors. An
almost inherent Canadian inferiority complex may disincline
Canadian political leaders from making this election about
the U.S. (unlike in the 1988 free trade campaigns) instead of
sticking to domestic topics of bread-and-butter interest to
voters. The leaders may also recognize that bilateral
relations are simply too important -- and successful -- to
turn into political campaign fodder that could backfire.
They may also be viewing the poll numbers in the U.S. and
recognizing that the results are too close to call. Had the
Canadian campaign taken place after the U.S. election, the
Conservatives might have been tempted to claim they could
work more effectively with a President McCain, or the
Liberals with a President Obama. Even this could be a risky
strategy, as perceptions of being too close to the U.S.
leader are often distasteful to Canadian voters; one
recurrent jibe about PM Harper is that he is a "clone of
George W. Bush." Ultimately, the U.S. is like the proverbial
900 pound gorilla in the midst of the Canadian federal
election: overwhelming but too potentially menacing to
acknowledge.

Visit Canada,s Economy and Environment Forum at
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/can ada

WILKINS

>> ^budzos:

Nobody calls it that or thinks of it that way except for the media and the gov't. It will always be "the 401" to non pod-people.
God I can't stand this type of shit. There's no glory in having your dead carcass paraded down a road "named" in anticipation of exploiting your death for political collateral. I'm not saying everything our military does is bad, and our government certainly kicks a lot of ass compared to almost any other country.. But this renaming bullshit comes from the Afghan/Iraq conflicts which I think 99% of sane people agree are not about freedom but the military industrial complex sustaining itself.
And just like in the USA, most of our military is not comprised of "heroes" but the poor, the unintelligent, the naive, the unskilled, basically the dregs of society who have joined up for countless reasons that do not include protecting the country. Usually they're trying to avoid going on welfare or are trying to pay for an education (which is sort of heroic in some senses). In some cases they're just dumb enough to believe what a recruiter tells them.



You clearly have no concept of our Canadian Military forces. If you don't like the afghan war call your MP, the men and women who want to serve our country do so voluntarily and with class (some exceptions).
I have family that serves and your disgusting comments make me think that you wouldn't be able to say these things in many country's of the world without being hanged. In fact if you don't like the freedoms you have (because of the military) then move.

Be thankful they will put their lives at risk so some ape like you can say vile things in freedom from oppression.