habitual_hab

I'm no business guru but I do own a small business that has a profitable history. For example, let's say that I want to employ the best workers available on the open market for my business - and negotiate a CBA with their union that will attract the best workers and negotiate contracts with "free agents" in the industry. If, in my bid to be the best business in my field, I have created a situation where employees' salaries are detrimental to the survival of my business, how is this the fault of my employees? And, if I have a history of corruption (as many NHL owners do) how do I expect my employees to believe my cries of poverty? The NHL is clearly trying to lay the blame for their past and present stupidity on the players without trying to negotiate in good faith a solution that benefits all four parties: the players, owners, franchise employees & fans. And by stupidity, I mean Bettman's paln to expand into markets like Nashville, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Anaheim, Raleigh, etc - markets that generate insufficient local revenues to justify the investment in the franchise. The NHL's move into the southern and western U.S., dubbed the Sunbelt Strategy, has, for the most part, failed. Sure, it increased the league's exposure, generated revenue from expansion fees and increased the league's attendance. But it also increased the competition for players and sent player salaries skyrocketing. And expansion didn't produce the big U.S. TV contract and revenues the league was hoping for. That's left teams to rely mainly on gate receipts for revenue, and in many of the markets that is a struggle. Contraction in tandem with the reduction of roster sizes would benefit all parties involved - IMO. link

that was negotiated in good faith between players and owners. Bettman B.S.: "It is important to note that the twenty-four percent rollback by the Players' Association is a recognition that our labor costs were too high and that a $1.8M average annual salary was not appropriate or sustainable under our level of revenues. "The Union, by its offer, has finally acknowledged the magnitude of our losses. Depite all of The Union's rhetoric to the contrary, The Union has confirmed the accuracy of our financial reporting. "There is no other rational explanation for a $269 M reduction on player contracts that they proposed for this season" The NHL cannot function without a players' union and a CBA. The players want to negotiate their contracts without any artificial restrictions - a free & open market. NHL players are replacing locked out or striking players in Europe? News to me. Owners' greed & stupidity is what has got the NHL into this position and their solution is to exact their solution from their employees - a perfect example of them being greedy cunts.

Post an opinion opposite to that of Habs77 and he calls you a sore loser. And he's a Moderator? What kind of bullshit site is this? ###### you asshole.

Habs77 sees it that way it must be so? Habs77 says a TB victory is a victory for NHL fans everywhere and being omnipotent it must be so? You have the megalomaniacal audacity to believe that your opinion is supreme? You think the better team won? Good for you but it doesn't make your opiinion right. TB Sycophants want to believe the puck wasn't across the line then they can delude themselves into believing so but it doesn't change reality. And read the rule book. Directing a puck into the net is not a goal but having it careem off one's skate is. If the Flames had benn blown out like the Habs were against Carolina then I'd tip my hat - but they didn't and I won't. Are you now an anal rententive regurgitator of banal Tampa Bay pieties? Sure sound like one.

That's a joke. The penalty at 18:59 of the third on Ference was a major joke - I'm starting to think that Sutter was right about the NHL. Face it, TB needed the NHL to wave off a Cup winning goal & put Fraser onto the Flames to win therefor they suck.

Wow... 90+ point season the weakest division in the NHL - only one +500 team. TB did a great clutch & grab job on Iginla. I saw the replay repeatedly - it was a goal, IMO. Calgary was robbed. ###### TB and its sycophants.

Both Iginla & Calgary'll pick it up. Go Flames - don't let some shoddy US team whose home rink can't even produce a half-decent ice surface win our sacred Cup! :can: [Edited on 2004/6/8 by habitual_hab]

I pick Gagne:o

I was watching CBC last night and they had some US apologist from the National Post on spouting the usual right-wing reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq: Saddam Hussein murdered thousands of political opponents and tens of thousands of members of ethnic minorities, repressed the population, and waged wars of aggression against Iran and Kuwait. But before August 1990, Sadam Hussein was serving U.S. interests. It was during this period that his worst atrocities took place -- his invasion of Iran, his use of chemical weapons against both Iran and Iraqi Kurds, his Anfal campaign of slaughter against the Kurdish population. Again, not only did Washington refrain from denouncing him as a monster, it provided him with economic aid, military intelligence, diplomatic support, and equipment that could be (and presumably was) used for his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. The National Security Archive at George Washington University in February 2003 published on the Web a series of declassified US documents detailing the US embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed US support for Saddam, he had invaded his Iran, had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and on the Kurds in his own country. The US response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983). The declassified documents include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific US priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding US ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. Connections between al Qaeda terrorists and Saddam Hussein's regime One cannot prove the absence of connections, but Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime has been ruthlessly secular and has had no love for fundamentalist groups. Al Qaeda, for its part, considers its task the overthrow of all governments in the region that are insufficiently Islamic, and certainly Hussein's regime counts as such. The US claims they do not need specific Security Council authorization to legally attack Iraq. After the Gulf War, resolution 687 ‑‑ accepted by Iraq ‑‑ mandated the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But nothing in that resolution authorized any use of force or the right of any individual state to determine Iraqi compliance. A final U.S. argument is that Iraq remains in violation of some 1990 resolutions relating to Kuwaiti prisoners and property and thus can still be brought to account under resolution 678. But at the March 2002 Arab League Summit, every Arab state including Kuwait signed an all‑sided rapprochement with Iraq, including specific arrangements for the return of Kuwait's stolen National Archives and prisoner exchanges. Thus there is no legal basis for a U.S. attack on Iraq without explicit Security Council authorization.

The International Committee for the Red Cross, in visits that started months ago to Iraq's US-administered prison, has been documenting abuse that was not the 'exception' but was tanatmount to the norm - abuse that was 'tantamount' to a policy of torture, and tolerated by coalition forces. Jeezuz, look back at Vietman and the Pheonix Program run by William Colby and the tortured used against Vietnamese citizens and you'll see a policy of torture promoted by US govt agencies.

Come on now, you are going to let isolated incidents convince you the US is torturing the Iraqi people? The mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in US custody is not limited to isolated cases but forms part of a systematic pattern, the Red Cross has said. A spokesman said the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had been warning the US about such cases for more than a year. He was responding to the publication of parts of a leaked ICRC report. The document concluded that abuse of Iraqi detainees was widespread and in some cases tantamount to torture. The Red Cross mentions a number of "serious violations of humanitarian law", including beatings and prolonged solitary confinement. But on Friday the Wall Street Journal quoted parts of the 24-page report. It alleges, among other things, that prisoners were kept naked in cells, in darkness and without facilities. It says prisoners were beaten, in one case leading to death, and that soldiers fired on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers, killing some of them. The report concludes there have been serious violations of the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of prisoners of war. The report says the ill-treatment was widely tolerated, especially with regard to extracting information from Iraqis. The report is at odds with the position of the US government, which insists that cases of abuses were isolated. ICRC director of operations, Pierre Kraehenbuehl, disputed this. "We were dealing here with a broad pattern, not individual acts. There was a pattern and a system," he said. Kind of reminds me of that song by The Who, "in comes the new boss, same as the old boss."

Native America, both north and south, experienced a sustained and incredibly impactful process of genocide, extending over a period of three to five hundred years, depending on which locale you're talking about. When we take the hemisphere, North and South, various numbers are given of indigenous peoples that were here before the Europeans came. At present, the best estimates that I'm aware of bracket it at somewhere between 100 and 150 million people, hemispherically speaking. That is circa 1500.And how successful were the Europeans at “cleansing” the Americas of its first inhabitants? Approximately 97 to 98 percentile liquidation of population by approximately 1890. Hitler took note of Native Americans, indigenous people of the Americas, specifically within the area of the U.S. and Canada. He used the treatment of native people, the policies and processes that were imposed upon them, as a model for what he articulated as being Lebensraumpolitik, the politics of living space. In essence, Hitler took the notion of a drive from east to west, clearing the land as the invading population went and resettling it with Anglo-Saxon stock, primarily, as a model by which he drove from west to east into Russia, displacing, relocating, dramatically shifting or liquidating populations to clear the land and replace it with what he called "superior breeding stock," meaning Germanic peoples. It was essentially the same process, and he was very conscious of the fact that he was basing his policies in the prior experience of the Anglo-American population, or Nordic population, as he called it, in the area north of the Rio Grande River. And the connection to Hitler is interesting because just as Hitler de-humanized the Jews, so did American leaders de-humanize Indians. George Washington, for example, describing Indians as "wild beasts of the forest" and "savage as the wolf." Thomas Jefferson chimed in with also very judicious comments about Indian peoples, "Driving them like wolves into the stony mountains." Which incidentally was a fairly adequate description of U.S. policy at the time. Andrew Jackson, who had horses' bridles made of Indian skin and bragged about it in his campaigns. He claimed that he had never fought an Indian he didn't kill and never killed an Indian he didn't scalp and that the scalps were available for inspection in his personal residence. That got him elected President. That speaks well to the public sensibility in the U.S., too. Take a look at the Genocide Convention and then look at how the American government treated (and treats to this day) 20th Century American Indians: - The compulsory transfer of American Indian children from their families, communities and societies to Euroamerican families and institutions (in violation of Article I(e) of the 1948 Convention). The stated goal was “assimilation” or the disappearance of Indian society, again, in direct contravention of the Genocide Convention. - An even clearer example of US govt genocide is the involuntary sterilization of American Indian women by the BIA’s Indian Health Service during the 1970s. This is of course in violation of Article I(d) of the 1948 Convention. For more info on the “American Holocaust” I’d check out Ward Churchill, one very angry Indian. [Edited on 2004/5/6 by habitual_hab]

I didn't say it was GWB's fault but what I did imply was that that type of action - the disrespect for international law, the disrespect of the lives of people in other nations - is systemic of US foreign policy. And while the US has not performed ethnic cleansing in Iraq it does have a nice history of it. To complain about Saddam's ethnic cleansing and celebrate Columbus Day is hypocrisy at its worst. [Edited on 2004/5/5 by habitual_hab]

I am not trying to pass off these horrible incidents. I am just saying that this is not the norm. If it were, we would have heard about it long ago. The people who are doing this torture are idiots. And even bigger idiots are people I have seen calling the incidents nothing more than "a little hazing." There are idiots out there, in every place on earth. The people responsible are being dealt with via court marshall. Bush and other leaders have made it clear this behavior is not acceptable. These incidents are terrible, but are not the norm. And I finally found a site with numebrs of Iraqi casualties. A large number of them have been killed in terrorist acts, such as car bombings. A very large protion of civilians have been killed in incidents where Iraqi militarists fire on American troops from civilian locations. Are the troops supposed to ignore this because the shots come from civilian institutions? And how many of these civilians are actually civilians? It has been obvious that many Iraqi militarists dress up in civilian clothes, in order to sneak attack American troops. I am not trying to downplay the tragedy of civilian casualties, but I do wonder about the numbers. Your imformation difers from the info I found at the Guardian: At least 5,000 civilians may have been killed during the invasion of Iraq, an independent research group has claimed. As more evidence is collated, it says, the figure could reach 10,000. Iraq Body Count (IBC), a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers, compiled statistics on civilian casualties from media reports and estimated that between 5,000 and 7,000 civilians died in the conflict. Its latest report compares those figures with 14 other counts, most of them taken in Iraq, which, it says, bear out its findings. Researchers from several groups have visited hospitals and mortuaries in Iraq and interviewed relatives of the dead; some are conducting surveys in the main cities. Three completed studies suggest that between 1,700 and 2,356 civilians died in the battle for Baghdad alone. Forgive me for doubting the moral corectness of US endeavours in Iraq: According to a Senate Report of 1994: From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow and agonizing deaths, were: - Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax. - Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin. - Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart. - Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs. - Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness. - Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic. - Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA. Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out: These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. The United Nations inspectors have uncovered evidence that Iraq was conducting research on pathogen enhancement and biological warfare-related stimulant research on many of the identical types of biological agents shipped to the country from the United States. These shipments continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds, and Shiites since the early 80s. During the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88, the United States gave military aid and intelligence information to both sides, hoping that each would inflict severe damage on the other, and, in a tilt towards Iraq, the US provided satellite imagery to Iraq for use during their chemical warfare against Iran. tacit consent and complicity. As I see it, US leadership is on par with Saddam. As for the Kurds, perhaps you might try reading the Pike Committe and in which Henry Kissinger who, after the US set up the Kurds to be slaughtered by Iraq, stated that "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work." Most people I know viewed Iraq as a threat to no one. A non-functional army, weapons programs dismantled by Un inspectors... Before the war, Hans Blix had this to say about the lack of WMDs and Iraqi cooperation: "Plausible ... verifiable ... progress..." Your famous aluminum tubes turned out - if one believes Mr Blix, and why not - to have nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Another point: Any country with hospital facilities or a high school chemical or bilogy labratory has the capacity to create WMDs. Is GWB going to go after them all? And what about Israel's nuclear weapons program? They have over 100 warheads, perhaps 200. Is this not a threat to international peace?

Come on now, you are going to let isolated incidents convince you the US is torturing the Iraqi people? And where are you getting these Iraqi casualty numbers from? Passing off the torture of Iraqis by US forces by calling them isolated incidents doesn't cut it as there are reports from Afghanistan now about US torture of prisoners. Add to that the Canadian citizen who now claims he was tortured by the US in Iraq. Saddam tortured the Iraqis. Now the US, after killing ten thousand civilians, tortures the Iraqis. What's the difference between the US and Saddam? None that I can see. IBC and the Guardian state that over ten thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed by the US and their minions. Hundreds of thousands was an emotional overstatement on my part. Also, you have linked the war against Saddam with the US war against terrorism. Please show me the proof of this link. I would expect it's similar to Colin Powell's proof of weapons of Saddam's WMDs - non-existant. [Edited on 2004/5/5 by habitual_hab]