These cables are mainly private conversations between diplomats of the same country that were never meant to be public, and generally have little to do with official policy. A frank discussion of issues is required to hash out important and sensitive issues. So no, they can't just stop doing this.
We all know what governments officially say and what they really think are often not completely congruent, but that is normal diplomacy.
I'm neither surprise nor offended to hear that high ranking usa officials think Canada is soft on terrorism.
USA Libertarians are on record saying that while in principal they are for equality they do not see it as the governments job to pass laws forcing someone to let blacks patronize their business. They would hope the weight of public opinion would do the job.
The Libertarian policies seem good on the surface, but many libertarians also are against the government funding education and healthcare. Many libertarians think the governments role should be limited to defense, police, and justice. If everyone was forward thinking, hard working, intelligent, and never had any bad luck, say getting cancer, this would work great. The real world is full of people that do need some help at different points in their lives.
And which guerrilla "army" actually threatens the USA? by threaten I mean has a realistic chance of doing more damage than car accidents.
More seriously, while the guerrilla's can certainly be annoying, and very difficult to stamp out if you are the invading army and they have the support of the locals, they are NOT going to win a war.
Maybe the Palestinians should stop suicide bombing, lobbing rockets, kidnapping and general mayhem. Kind of hard to make peace with someone who is sworn to destroy you, and teaches hatred of Jews" to all its children. I don't agree with all the actions the Israelis take to defend themselves, but the Palestinians have avoided peace more than once (Camp David, etc...). The Israelis should stop building "settlements" in disputed lands.
And this vigilance should start home with the laws our own governments pass, the policies they have in international trade, and starting preemptive wars.
There are cultures that do not deserve to be defended, but should be condemned for their frequent abuse of human rights, and thuggish, criminal behavior.
And just because we are not as bad as some countries, doesn't mean we get to be smug and righteous - lots of room for improvement here too.
Doing good for society at large is often used as an excuse to suppress the rights of individuals. Unless there is a wide consensus in a society to implement something, eg universal education funding, courts, police, fire department, the government should not force it on everyone.
Morality is not dependent on "place and time" which I assume you are arguing for some sort of "cultural relativism". Yes, morality and ethics is complicated, and the specific situation can mean that even moral ideas thought of as absolute such as "do not kill" may in fact be the right and moral thing to do. But theses circumstances have nothing to do with culture, time, or place. If a given act is immoral right here, right now, for a given set of circumstances, it is immoral everywhere at all times.
The lawyers are not suing. The old women's family is suing. Blame yourself and the politicians you elect that make the laws that allow this. This is like saying we should kill all the mechanics because Lada's suck.
Your car has 150hp so it can accelerate up to highway speed quickly. It only needs a few HP to maintain highway speed. 40HP is all you need to keep an average mid-sized car going along on the highway at 100kmh. 40HP is about 30Kw, so for most cars he is off by a factor of ten.
Kind of like Canada. The government pays doctors, builds and run hospitals, chooses what procedures are covered, but has no say in which doctor you use. I can use whatever doctor, at whatever clinic, at whatever hospital I want. The doctor doesn't have to worry about a "pre-existing" condition invalidating my insurance, or about caps, or co-pays.
Still not happy, and have lots of money? nothing stopping you form flying to the states, and there are private clinics up here too.
Actually, only civil marriage makes you married before the eyes of the law which is why you have to sign those government papers to be legally married even if married by your church. If you have a church wedding, but don't do the paper work you are just living together "common law" still. If you just have the paper work done and swear before a justice of the peace you are married legally. No church wedding required. Part and parcel of the whole state and church separation thing.
It's not like the question of homosexuality is the only moral question the bible got wrong. The bible condones slavery, stoning people to death for not observing the sabbath, and lots of other bad stuff. A careful reading shows that the bible is just full of stuff that most moral people now find wrong.
Most Christians decide right and wrong the same way atheists do: modern secular liberal thought that since the enlightenment has told us it is wrong to harm other people.
You are NOT given rights. Your USA constitution spells out some ways your government is not allowed to infringe on the rights you are born with.
You are not being slowly given back your right to bear arms. You never lost it. Your government was restricting your right to bear arms.
Personally, I'm all for gun control. Not banning them, but controlling them, training the people who use them, making sure they are stored and moved safely, etc...
You have it backwards. Only the fact that there are illegal drugs makes it possible for criminals to make money from them. Doing drugs may harm yourself, but they don't harm anyone else. Virtually all the harm caused by illegal drugs is a by product of the drugs being illegal.
How many people has the war on drugs stopped from getting drugs? Zero.
Has the war on drugs made it easier or harder for kids to get drugs? Easier as criminals do not generally check IDs or have generally good ethical behavior.
Has the war on drugs made criminals so rich they can destabilize small countries? Yes.
Has the war on drugs caused more harm than the drugs being banned? Yes.
While there is no doubt that some drugs can totally screw you up, making drugs legal has not increased the number of people doing drugs. Some people are risk takers. Some people are just stupid. But making drugs illegal has NOT stopped anyone from getting them. It has made a ton of money for the violent criminals.
But he NOT being sued. He is being criminally charged, mainly with interfering with justice. This is NOT a civil case so loser pays doesn't enter into it. For a criminal case the government will provide a lawyer if you cannot afford one.
He is not being sued, he is being criminally charged. The most serious charge is interfering with justice. As it is a criminal case, he would get a government paid lawyer if he cannot afford one.
In this case the RCMP are pissed because the guys web site is interfering with an ongoing homicide investigation. He isn't just making general comments about the RCMP, but making specific accusations against specific officers about a specific case.
I hope you are not an American, as your ignorance about your own constitution is amazing.
The American constitution does not give you any rights. The American constitution points out that you are born with rights, simply by being human, then sets out some specific things the government may NOT do as they would infringe your rights.
The USA constitution does NOT give you rights. It protects your rights from your government.
Slashdot Mirror
These cables are mainly private conversations between diplomats of the same country that were never meant to be public, and generally have little to do with official policy. A frank discussion of issues is required to hash out important and sensitive issues. So no, they can't just stop doing this.
We all know what governments officially say and what they really think are often not completely congruent, but that is normal diplomacy.
I'm neither surprise nor offended to hear that high ranking usa officials think Canada is soft on terrorism.
USA Libertarians are on record saying that while in principal they are for equality they do not see it as the governments job to pass laws forcing someone to let blacks patronize their business. They would hope the weight of public opinion would do the job.
The Libertarian policies seem good on the surface, but many libertarians also are against the government funding education and healthcare. Many libertarians think the governments role should be limited to defense, police, and justice. If everyone was forward thinking, hard working, intelligent, and never had any bad luck, say getting cancer, this would work great. The real world is full of people that do need some help at different points in their lives.
And which guerrilla "army" actually threatens the USA? by threaten I mean has a realistic chance of doing more damage than car accidents.
More seriously, while the guerrilla's can certainly be annoying, and very difficult to stamp out if you are the invading army and they have the support of the locals, they are NOT going to win a war.
Modern warfare is won by the side with the largest industrial output, logistics, and technology that doesn't completely screw up on the battle field.
Maybe the Palestinians should stop suicide bombing, lobbing rockets, kidnapping and general mayhem. Kind of hard to make peace with someone who is sworn to destroy you, and teaches hatred of Jews" to all its children. I don't agree with all the actions the Israelis take to defend themselves, but the Palestinians have avoided peace more than once (Camp David, etc...). The Israelis should stop building "settlements" in disputed lands.
But they don't have freedom of religion. They have one, oppressive version of a religion imposed on everyone.
And this vigilance should start home with the laws our own governments pass, the policies they have in international trade, and starting preemptive wars.
There are cultures that do not deserve to be defended, but should be condemned for their frequent abuse of human rights, and thuggish, criminal behavior.
And just because we are not as bad as some countries, doesn't mean we get to be smug and righteous - lots of room for improvement here too.
Doing good for society at large is often used as an excuse to suppress the rights of individuals. Unless there is a wide consensus in a society to implement something, eg universal education funding, courts, police, fire department, the government should not force it on everyone.
Morality is not dependent on "place and time" which I assume you are arguing for some sort of "cultural relativism". Yes, morality and ethics is complicated, and the specific situation can mean that even moral ideas thought of as absolute such as "do not kill" may in fact be the right and moral thing to do. But theses circumstances have nothing to do with culture, time, or place. If a given act is immoral right here, right now, for a given set of circumstances, it is immoral everywhere at all times.
Money and power are just two parts of the many levels of human motivation.
The lawyers are not suing. The old women's family is suing. Blame yourself and the politicians you elect that make the laws that allow this. This is like saying we should kill all the mechanics because Lada's suck.
2kw is possible if the car is very aerodynamic. The power required for wind resistance at 25 km/s ( = 56 mph ) and a drag coefficient of 0.25 = about 2 kw or 2.6 HP per m^2 cross sectional area.
Your car has 150hp so it can accelerate up to highway speed quickly. It only needs a few HP to maintain highway speed. 40HP is all you need to keep an average mid-sized car going along on the highway at 100kmh. 40HP is about 30Kw, so for most cars he is off by a factor of ten.
Kind of like Canada. The government pays doctors, builds and run hospitals, chooses what procedures are covered, but has no say in which doctor you use. I can use whatever doctor, at whatever clinic, at whatever hospital I want. The doctor doesn't have to worry about a "pre-existing" condition invalidating my insurance, or about caps, or co-pays.
Still not happy, and have lots of money? nothing stopping you form flying to the states, and there are private clinics up here too.
Actually, only civil marriage makes you married before the eyes of the law which is why you have to sign those government papers to be legally married even if married by your church. If you have a church wedding, but don't do the paper work you are just living together "common law" still. If you just have the paper work done and swear before a justice of the peace you are married legally. No church wedding required. Part and parcel of the whole state and church separation thing.
This applies to most western countries.
It's not like the question of homosexuality is the only moral question the bible got wrong. The bible condones slavery, stoning people to death for not observing the sabbath, and lots of other bad stuff. A careful reading shows that the bible is just full of stuff that most moral people now find wrong.
Most Christians decide right and wrong the same way atheists do: modern secular liberal thought that since the enlightenment has told us it is wrong to harm other people.
And treaties with Canada somewhat restrict what you can do with our water.
You are NOT given rights. Your USA constitution spells out some ways your government is not allowed to infringe on the rights you are born with.
You are not being slowly given back your right to bear arms. You never lost it. Your government was restricting your right to bear arms.
Personally, I'm all for gun control. Not banning them, but controlling them, training the people who use them, making sure they are stored and moved safely, etc...
You have it backwards. Only the fact that there are illegal drugs makes it possible for criminals to make money from them. Doing drugs may harm yourself, but they don't harm anyone else. Virtually all the harm caused by illegal drugs is a by product of the drugs being illegal.
How many people has the war on drugs stopped from getting drugs? Zero.
Has the war on drugs made it easier or harder for kids to get drugs? Easier as criminals do not generally check IDs or have generally good ethical behavior.
Has the war on drugs made criminals so rich they can destabilize small countries? Yes.
Has the war on drugs caused more harm than the drugs being banned? Yes.
While there is no doubt that some drugs can totally screw you up, making drugs legal has not increased the number of people doing drugs. Some people are risk takers. Some people are just stupid. But making drugs illegal has NOT stopped anyone from getting them. It has made a ton of money for the violent criminals.
Prohibition always fails.
There are no newspapers or magazines in the USA? No serious internet news sites? Only tv?
But he NOT being sued. He is being criminally charged, mainly with interfering with justice. This is NOT a civil case so loser pays doesn't enter into it. For a criminal case the government will provide a lawyer if you cannot afford one.
He is not being sued, he is being criminally charged. The most serious charge is interfering with justice. As it is a criminal case, he would get a government paid lawyer if he cannot afford one.
In this case the RCMP are pissed because the guys web site is interfering with an ongoing homicide investigation. He isn't just making general comments about the RCMP, but making specific accusations against specific officers about a specific case.
I hope you are not an American, as your ignorance about your own constitution is amazing.
The American constitution does not give you any rights. The American constitution points out that you are born with rights, simply by being human, then sets out some specific things the government may NOT do as they would infringe your rights.
The USA constitution does NOT give you rights. It protects your rights from your government.