Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Prime Minister Jean Chretien -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Graystone who wrote (227)	11/27/2002 7:40:46 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 443

The journalists ranked American press freedom lower specifically because the courts did jail journalists for reasons that the journalists felt were not warranted. Pointing out that the government felt they were warranted, or that you feel the government was warranted does not change the fact that the press did not agree. And the Nazis did not agree that they should be overthrown by British, French, Soviet, and US armies. So what? That fact that headline mongers are deprived of headlines proves nothing. There's something you skipped over: <<May I point out that Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers, spent not one day in jail? That a motion by the gov't to exercise prior restraint on the press in the matter was overruled by the courts? And American courts have consistently held that viewpoint? That they would never have seen the light of day in Britain because of the Official Secrets Act? Is it on your list of dictatorships also? That Woodward and Bernstein, who brought down a President, did no jail time? Controlled press, my a$$.>> Britain? Britain and numerous other western European democracies have laws that control the press more tightly than the US does. Yet they are hardly considered oppressive dictatorships. And I suspect that if I knew Canadian law better, I could counter your charge with worse. There have been mutterings about the gov't-owned CBC on this very thread. Canada joined NATO because we adjoin the North Atlantic, Canada joined NORAD because we are in North America. <g> And the same is true of Mexico. ?. An alliance is not a contest to see who has the biggest army, that is a war isn't it ? I didn't say it was. I said the largest contributor to the alliance was likely to be its leader. We're not talking right or wrong here; we're talking reality. This worked against the US at the end of WW1. The US had its own ideas of what the peace should look like, ideas that might just have prevented WW2. But Britain and France had contributed the most men and materiel; they dictated the terms. Where have you ever seen me suggest Hussein should be left alone, I have asked if Iraq disarms, who is there to shoot at ? Then there is nothing to shoot at and the US has already agreed to that. You seem to be dead sat against the US effort to disarm Saddam. It appears there are only 2 alternatives: You do it or you don't. What shall it be? Canada clearly reaps many advantages from a close alliance with the United States. And the US clearly reaps many advantages from a close alliance with Canada. That alliance was very likely crucial to the successful outcome of the Cold War. Mr. Chretien has indicated Canada is not going to support an attack that has the sole intention of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Didn't you just say Where have you ever seen me suggest Hussein should be left alone</> ?