>I had written that your country is not currently bombing anybody.

That is false statement.

>I said your country is NOT currently bombing anybody.

You only added that about two email ago.  Before, you just said "they" and
weren't specific on who "they" are.  Check your past emails to confirms
this, I am telling the truth.

>You said Canada is currently bombing Iraq.

I said "they" are bombing Iraq.

>> Your point was that I said I protested the NATO actions because I
>> believed bombing was amoral.  And that because I didn't mention
>> anything here about the bombing of Chechenya, therefore proved I had
>> a double standard on the morality of bombing.

>No, I said you have the same double standard as the governments you
>denigrate, namely, that you protest when it suits you to protest.

What the hell are you talking about?  Do you even know what a double
standard is?!  If my standard is protesting when it suits me to protest, and
then I do exactly that, that isn't a double standard.

>The US protests the actions of some other government, when it suits the US
to do so.

If they say it is because of morality, then that is a double standard.  Of
course, they really are lying about the reasons and that's why it appears to
be a double standard, even though there isn't.

>You protest the actions of a government when it suits you to do so.

Correct.  I don't lie about the reasons though.

>It does not suit you to protest the actions of Russia against Chechnya. You
say that doesn't mean you don't care about Chechens.  Fine.  You care about
Chechens.  You still have a double standard.

The word double standard doens't mean anything to you, does it?

>If the US had not spoken up about Indonesian attrocities in East Timor, you
would have accused the US of having a double standard.

"Spoken up"?  How about "supported".  The US rethortic has a double
standard, not the US.

>Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, John Howard and 3J Chrétien all care just as much
about people as you do.

I doubt that.  They wouldn't have made it that far if they did.

>In fact, don't they care a lot more than you?  They cared enough to go
through all the blood, sweat, and tears to become head of state of
their respective nations.

That is the very reason why.  The blood, sweat and tears you speak about
isn't their's.

“Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient is
a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum
one's own need to think.” -- Adolf Eichmann, convicted of committing
atrocites during WWII

>You disagree with their activism.  Theirs is bad.  Yours is good.

For reasons that are obvious, I think.

>I added *no* requirement.  *You* implied directly that Canada is
bombing Iraq.

You added that requirement and you added it late.

I never implied Canada was bombing Iraq, only that Canada does support the
cause directly and that I bare some guilt.  The guilt is worsened as
atrocities increase and/or when support from Canada increases.

Milutin

--
While arms warehouses fill as quick as tha cells
Rally round tha family, pockets full of shells