Teaser? Well, I can't think of a fitting one for the moment, being in rush mode. But, I guess, one could be "what about law & morality, [real] spirit; why's it so extremely absent, as is the case in our world of [imperialistic] immorality? Empire can work, but [most] people presently in temporal power certainly are not leaders".

Firstly, I tried the 'Discuss' link, to see if this could be posted in a discussion forum, however that link, for which the url is http://www.cmaq.net/en/module.php?mod=forum , just brings me to http://www.cmaq.net/en/index.php , and I did not find any means of using that page like most Web discussion forums work. So, this is being posted as a submission or publication.

And I do not personally have much to say, not for now anyway; perhaps there would be, if my mind was not in "rush mode", but that's my present mode of mind. Yet, the authors of the articles that this post is for say [plenty], and carefully reading what they have to say is the crucial point.

The following is based on an incident that occurred last Friday:

US Denies French Fighters Emergency Landing Rights: Fair-Weather Friends, by Dave Lindorff, June 7, 2005,
CounterPunch

And the following is, personally, highly recommended, too, while I could also add many more, but will not do the extras:

Pushing Back Violence: Peacemaker Teams Get in the Way, by Greg Moses and Susan Van Haitsma, June 7, 2005,
CounterPunch

"CounterPunch"? Well, it strikes me as a [fitting] title. It's an excellent website and, personally, in my opinion, highly recommended; including very much. Of course there are other recommendable websites, like this one, rabble.ca, globalResearch.ca, some other Canadian and U.S. websites, among sites from other countries, but am not going to begin to enumerate, specify all of those I've come across and occasionally get back to; not even having enough time to read all that's provided in these sites specifically referred to. SelvesAndOthers(.org) is relatively new, I believe anyway, and also a fine resource, but there also are [many] unmentioned others, too. And I am in no way associated with any of the sites specifically referred to here-in; only being a reader. This is not a question of promotion for any kind of profit, income; no secrecy in that, or any other whatsoever, respect being involved on my part.

Lastly, and because I rarely right publicly, I'll add a "side" comment.

Now, we all [know] that Canada, France and Britain, I believe also Britain anyway, ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC, while Bill Clinton made a move in that direction, but did not ratify, and then G.W. Bush went and eliminated what Bill Clinton had done. Okay, so we know that G.W. Bush and his administration's staff cannot be easily charged and tried at/with the ICC; however, that is not the case for these other governments. We all know what Tony Blair is guilty of and that he should likely be facing a sentence of the order at least nearing spending the rest of his earthly days, life incarcerated; all while knowing that that is very unlikely to ever happen, for the ICC and the "hidden hand" -- of real temporal power -- are not totally separate. However, at least the people of Canada and France could demand that if their governments refuse to do what is legally, lawfully, and morally right and needed, then to file the charges with the ICC; and [NONE] of this is being done; [nothing] whatsoever.

Former PM Jean Chretien is [extremely] criminal for having rendered this nation the greatest contributor to the U.S. military build-up for launching the war on Iraq, at a time when it was rather very obvious that this war could not be justified and would [only], strictly be criminal to launch. Jacques Chirac is [extremely] guilty for having accepted to partake in the entirely criminal and unjustifiable coup d'etat in Haiti, in Feb. 2004, and for having turned that country into a temporal [hell]; a place where psychpaths [rule] and are maintained in rule. And now PM Paul Martin is not only guilty like Jacques Chirac is, but also for continuing Canada's participation in this entirely hell-bent, unjustifiable, criminal war on Iraq; obviously not a war to only oust Saddam Hussein and his government regime, for then there would be absolutely no way to explain the [major] destruction of Falluja, [much] in Najaf, the very similar in Al-Qaim, and so on; no, a war [on] Iraq, indeed, is the case; all obvious even before the launch of this war; for those of us who do not spend our lives and beings in disneyland anyway.

The UN is also rather extremely guilty in the case of Haiti, and does rather little other than to buttress hell-bent imperialism with respect to Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Now, the ICC is going after the Sudanese government, and what's happened in Darfur is awful, extreme, but definitely not the sole extreme case; and in that case, it's a country unto itself, as opposed to breaching international borders; well, with respect to what the U.S., Britain, Canada and France have been doing, Sudan is minorly, barely in breach of borders, anyway.

The ICC is again proving that while the judges wish to [pretend] to us that they are indeed honest, morally and legally integral, well, that it very definitely is [not] that; instead, it's either always been, or has become just yet another instrument of the "hidden hand" people.

What are the French of France going to do? Are they going to finally do what's Right and demand that Chirac stand trial for the extreme crime committed upon Haiti, or will they just sit idly by, while temporal hell continues to be brought by their government to foreign countries?

That is a pertinent question, but I'm not a citizen of France and have even more in mind "what are Canadians going to do on their part?"; because [none] of the peoples of any of these countries are paying attention to [law], and I'm a Canadian citizen and resident; while PM Paul Martin is additional criminal, national/federally as well as internationally, for income tax evasion, which is an operation he handed off to his sons, who have since taken on the crime of their father. "All in the family"? Indeed; apparently anyway.

Even Canadian "Conservative" Party leader Stephen Harper is criminal with respect to the war in Iraq; very criminal, actually. Although he did not overtly affect the decisions of the "Liberal" Party that's in power, and which is more guilty than he is, well, he quite ferociously attacked the party in power for its refusal to fully embark in the the war [on] Iraq. There were not credible reasons for this war being justified, ever, so Harper is also criminal; besides being one heck of a serious and very obvious [idiot].

And we could add the man who was CEO of CAE in early 2003, who whined about the likely fact that that corporation risked not receiving U.S. military defence contracts, if Canada did not fully join in on this war [on] Iraq; as well as the spokeswoman of the Economic Club of Canada, or Toronto, who also made it entirely clear that commerce is far more important to her than the question of war could ever be; and regardless how unjustified the war obviously is.

All of those people are among the very worst and most hell-bented of our world, yet they all continue to live in luxury, and to rule. And the ICC stays "nicely" asleep, in [witting] denial. The judges and prosecutors of the ICC know very well what the laws [are], but [refuse] to really enforce them. Former president Milosevic's case has made that reality of the ICC blatantly evident, given the far worse criminal "leaders" the ICC obviously does not want to address; and if ever it does, then it's [superficially], very, extremely.

I understand the laws, and have a much more profound understanding of [morality], which is the only way, means that laws should be defined and established. However, almost none of us seems to really care, for we're not charging these [criminals] with/for their real and horrendous, unacceptable, etc., crims.

Understand, "leadership by example" is key, crucial, but if no one embarks on this path, then no one will ever lead by example; which in turn will mean that no one will ever really, truly lead. True leadership cannot be without it being by example.

It is for that, very much anyway, reason that I do not accept the attitude of "well, the U.S. is not allowing it's president, v.p., secretary of defence, ..., including any of its military service members, to stand trial for war crimes, so why should we? NO, if they do not show leadership, then we also will not!"; because that is one yet other hell-bent attitude, only playing along with hell-bent rules; saying that if the very worst beast is not legally addressed for its crimes, then other beasts, but lessers, with the odd exception -- like former president Milosevic supposedly is, in the sick joke trial of the ICC against him.

I'd let Milosevic go, with a simple but clear warning "to be a good leader", letting him return to presidency of his country; as long as he'd mind law; by far prefering to go after the worst people, criminal "leaders". And former PM Jean Chretien was, i.e., [is], also criminal for having partaken, led Canada into the [unjustifiable], and gangsterism organised military war on Kosovo/Yugoslavia, in 1999.

The citizens of each country [need] to work on getting their own so-called leaders to stand trial for their crimes; [not] to wait until the "leaders" of the very worst of all of the beasts are finally addressed with trials. Adopting the opposite course is to [reject] the essential principle of [leadership by example]. It does not matter who the best leader is in the end; what's important is to have [real] leaders; instead of [frauds], particularly very criminal frauds; and all of these people are that, very, extremely criminal. Even former president Milosevic's crimes, if he's truly guilty of any of the allegations against him, is not criminal to the extent that PM Paul Martin is. Even Milosevic did not bark, shout out for entirely unjustifable and criminal war the way Stephen Harper did; and Martin and Chretien are worse than Milosevic, who rather obviously has more intelligence than any of these Canadian "leaders".

Understand, I look at life [critically], critically objectively; always endeavouring to be absent of subjectivism, dishonest, immoral, or just plainly incompetent and malignant bias; far prefering to always work on trying to perceive Reality as wholly as I can.

Some months back I went to a "Union des forces progressistes" meeting about the wars in Iraq and Haiti, and the so-called war on terrorism, and brought up the topic of getting Martin and Chretien to stand trial, either here or at the ICC, and those there who knew what I was talking about all provided declining, rejecting expressions, reactions; although not because they thought that I was wrong, having struck me as having that perspective, of refusing, for other reasons; likely, "like, what are you talking about? What you're suggesting is impossible; won't work, if tried, and the whole of that could lead to serious troubles for us". I respect those people and certainly understand their reactions, but do not agree with that attitude, outlook. The laws [are] established, and if we are going to pay income taxes to governments which quite ruthlessly impose taxation, while [pretending] that we truly live and vote in real democracies, then ....

So, this is my combined message; firstly, the two articles referenced at the top, and then this additional commentary; the latter have been included here-in in order to simply avoid writing a separate article.

With all due respect to all readers;

Mike Corbeil



P.S. Although this is only a small -- I think relatively anyway -- portion of the whole that's been long-enough on my mind, so far, my apology is offered to those readers who find this to be too long. It [is] preferable to say as much as we can with as few words as possible, for getting messages quickly communicated, but ..., well, am human and not flawless.