JerrySeinfeld

In WW2 there was a clear enemy and the there was a way to measure success (i.e. the surrender of Germany and or Japan). Furthermore, there was a immediate danger to the countries involved (nightly bombings of London). This bogus war on terror has no way to measure success because you cannot prove a negative (e.g no terrorist attacks in 500 days - does that mean we won ) Furthermore, there is real evidence that fighting terrorism with war is like fighting oil fires with water: it accomplishes nothing and just makes the problem worse. In WW2 it was pretty obvious that removing Hitler from power would solve the problem. It would be worth staying in Iraq if Iraq had some connection to the problem. The fact is that Iraq had no connection to terrorism and was a bogus war justified by idiots who think complex social problems can be solved with a cruise missile. There will be no peace in Iraq until the Americans leave and let the various factions rip each other apart for a few years. Once they have figured out that they have no one to blame but themselves they will figure out some way to get along. The establishmen of a democratic west-friednly state in the middle of the middle east with a strong American miltary presence has stirred up all kinds of muslim fanatacism - which clearly illutrates Iraq's importance to the issue of terrorism. If you don't believe your lyin' eyes just ask bin laden who refers to the Iraq war as WWIII between the USA and Islamic radicals. A quagmire with only 3,000 US deaths? Gosh - I'll tak that quagmyre anyday. But you are right - we should increase the presence and get more serious over there - right now they barbarians think they're winning.

Yes they might. But who is to say that gender is a better qualifier of who gets to participate in sports than ability. If boys are better at sports, maybe there ought to be more of them playing it than women. Either that, or women would flock to those sports which they are better at. The PGA and LPGA are commercial events. They are free to restrict the field of players to whatever generates teh most demand for the event. If they think there is market demand for segregated golf they are free to segregate by gender, race, age, or whatever they choose. As a society we have been used to segration by gender, so it doesn't really cause uproar. Race might be a different story simply because of sensitivities. We can't? Why not? Because then we wouldn't have an LPGA - underachieving PGA players would flock in to clean up the cash leaving nothing for the weak and feeble women.

I have one question? Why do we always stop at the date ISRAEL was officially created and question history from that date forward? On the same basis isn't it equally as absurd to question the creation of any country? Perhaps we should go back through the history of mankind and question the legitimate creation of ANY country EVER created. But no - let's stick to the 1948 formula. It's easier for the terrosit-sympathizing nitwits.

Start fathoming..... When Roosevelt said at the casablanca confernce that the Allied goal was the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan (but not Italy) the ripples were felt across the oceans....many including in the British war cabinet felt that an unconditional surrender ultimatum would steal the will of the enemy and keep them in the fight longer than necessary. Churchill himself had doubts about it and pressed to leave Italy out of the statement in order that if they fell from Hitler's grasp they would sue for terms..... One thing that stands out, at least in the British political conduct of the war was how many times Churchill was called to defend his and his generals performance before parliament where open and often heated debate took place. Nothing was sacred. And if it was too sensitive for open debate they had a secret session. In the end I believe Churchills opinion was that the debates strengthened the nation. OK - pretty good stuff. And it actually even strengthens the argument for staying with Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, even in bigger wars we have historically questioned ourselves but stuck with it and come out victorious. Syicking with Iraq should be a cakewalk if it weren't for squeemish media having a fit with every car bomb. The USA has lost about 1 month's worth of Vietnam casualties in this entire Iraq war - hardly 'cause for an exit strategy.

The reason girls are allow to try out for boys teams but not vise versa is simple: Girls generall suck at sports when compared to boys. If boys went out for girls teams they'd dominate. Think of the PGA. A bottom tier PGA player could go out for the LPGA (teeing off from the same tees as the women) and kick ass all over the place, winning virtually every tournament or coming in 2nd. We can't have that. WOmen aren't good anough at sports. If there are a few mutants out there who want to play with the boys, let 'em at it, I say. There are never going to be more than a couple on every team - there just aren't enough women who can do it.

I don't think it's all about the failings of multi-culturism. Frankly, I think multi-culturalism is a good thing. I have two grammar school aged kids and they know more about China, Hinduism and Central America than I did at their age. I think multi-culturalism teaches them to recognize the larger world around them (or would you rather have the US raise another generation of navel-gazing "U-S-A"-chanting yahoos?). I think the problem you are pointing two has two elements (neither of which has to do with multi-culturalism): 1. Because of the Holocaust, there is a sensitivity about comments directed at and scapegoating of Jews by white people. That's just a fact of life we have to live with. This sensitivity, though, does not extend to quashing legitimate political discourse about Israel. 2. Since Israel and the Islamic world are locked in a perpetual political struggle, people often give a "pass" to critics of Israel if they are Muslims. I don't excuse hateful language (likening Jews to pigs and dogs) and think it is both unfair to Jews and hypocritical of the PC police to make excuses for hate speech just because it comes from someone with darker skin. What are they being taught about China and the rest of the world? That's the question. Are our childeren being taught that a culture that hates jews is equal and good?

So? The US and the Russians did the same thing during the cold war when they thought it would help them politically. Neither side handed over nukes to the people fighting in these various wars by proxy. Iran is a mature society with a long history - this means that common sense and self-preservation will prevail in the long run no matter what inflammatory rhetoric gets tossed around in the short term.I find it disturbing that so many people are talking about going to war with Iran today after the fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. By that definition there are a lot of people in leadership positions in the US gov't that are certifiably insane. ACTUALLY if you look at the past 3 decades the US and world policy toward the middle east would be insane under your definition - that's why we're taking a different tact now. If you believe Michael Moore and the rest of the squeemish left media, yes it's time for an "exit strategy". But I can't even fathom the press and even lefties in the 40's talking about an "exit strategy"from WWII. It takes a long time to defeat these a**holes. They have the long term resolve...do we?

Ahmedinejad is puppet put in place by the Mullahs who have the real power. I believe the Mullahs are as rational as the Communists in China or the authoritarians in Moscow. I question the sanity of the latter two groups of people as well but I not afraid that they will start a nuclear war. How many suicide bombers have come from Iran? I have not heard of any. However, bombing the country would be a really good way to create legions of them. Take a look around Iraq. Who is it you think is promoting disruption in Iraq? Who supports Hezbollah? The bombing of the Jewish centre in Buenos Aires? The FATWA against Salmon Rushdie? Iran is a key source of Islamic fundamentalist support throughout the world.

Question: What's wrong with multiculturalism? Well, the following quote from a good writer doesn't summarize, but it certainly touches on some key problems: "Hating Jews, for example, is strictly verboten. Well, it's verboten if you're an elderly white male of German extraction, like Reni Sentana-Ries (formerly Reinhard Gustav Mueller) of Edmonton. Herr Sentana-Ries was sentenced to 16 months in jail by the Court of Queen's Bench for anti-Semitic screeds on his widely unread website in which he referred to Jews as "subhuman" "debauched" "demons." On the other hand, if you're not an elderly white male of German extraction, if you're a large crowd of persons of, ahem, non-German extraction and you march through downtown Calgary with placards reading "DEATH TO THE JEWS," nobody prosecutes you. If you're the A-list imams at the Grand Mosque of Stockholm and you sell cassettes referring to Jews as "the brothers of pigs and apes" and urging believers to go out and kill them, Sweden's chancellor of justice, Goran Lambertz, says no problem, these are just the routine designations "used by one side in an ongoing and far-reaching conflict where calls to arms and insults are part of the everyday climate in the rhetoric that surrounds this conflict"--i.e., threatening to kill Jew pigs is just part of the vibrant multicultural tapestry. The president of Iran, like the hapless Herr Sentana-Ries, is also a Holocaust denier and one with rather more advanced plans for resuming implementation of the final solution. But he gets photo ops with the UN secretary-general and EU officials." Why is it that tolerance has gotten to the point where we tolerate the intolerant? Are we so "multicultural" that we don' defend or believe that anything is worth fighting for?

There are many nuclear installations distributed around the country - some in the middle of populated areas. Any tactical strike would require multiple waves of cruise missiles and bunker busting bombs that would inevitably cause a significant number of civilian casualties. Furthermore, such attacks would not eliminate the threat - they would only delay it. My feeling is using excessive force against Iran today would make it much more likely that nukes would be used when Iran is finally able to build a bomb. MAD worked for 50 years during the cold war - it can work with Iran too.Incidentally, both Russia and China have radical Islamic groups creating trouble within their countries. Russia and China do not appear to be that concerned about Iran acquiring nukes which suggests that they do not believe that Iran would let terrorist groups have access to the technology even if they had it. MAD only works with rational people. Someone who claims a "qolden aura" surrounds him while he speaks o the UN, denies the holocaust and outwardly states his intention to "wipe Israel off the map" doesn't qualify. In his most recent address to the UN he finished with his desire for the coming of the "12th Imam" or the "Hidden Imam". Anyone who understands Islam knows the firm belief that armageddon must precede the coming of the 12th Imam. A religious fanatic intent on the annihalation of an entire race and who clearly announces his desire for armageddon to the UN general assembly doesn't qualify as a very good lab-rat for a new "MAD" theory. Or on a much simpler basis, how can Mutually Assured Destruction work for a man that speaks for a religion that's chief non-oil export is suicide bombers?

Exactly. Which is another reason a pre-nup should be in place. This way two parties would act independant of financial considerations and solely concentrate on the (non-monetary) value of the relationship. Should we all be making relationship decisions independant of financial considerations? A pre-nup automatically eliminates money from the picture and allows both parties to focus upon the relatinoship on it's own merit.

Thoughts?

Actually there is a Palesitian state. It's call Jordan which is majority palestinian. It used to be alot bigger before King Hussein joined Nasser in 1967 in their fight against Israel and lost. When will these morons learn, you can't attack someone, then lose, then complain about the consequenses. Israel needs to grow...dramaticall...to about the size of...oh...say Southern Lebanon and Syria. These placs should be wiped off the map. Oh wait - that's their stance on ISRAEL!! There is no confusion about the good guys and the bad guys here: it's obvious. The good guys are Israel and the bad guys are the violent jew-hating annihalists.

Let me weigh in here and I apologize if this opinion has already been stated earlier: Whoever (usually women) spouts this BS viewpoint that asking your future spouse to sign a pre-nup shows a lack of faith in "love" is using an emotional blackmail technique to skirt reality. 1. Regardless of your (completely unobjective) assessment of "your relationship", getting married is a coin-flip. You have about 50% chance of getting divorced. A prenup addresses this reality and plans for it. 2. For those who have "complete faith" in a relationshp, a pre-nup should not be a problem. Keep in mind, the REFUSAL to sign a pre-nup is equally as revealing about that person's faith in the relationship. ie. If you believe in your heart it will work, why would you care if one was in place? Because you want to protect your position in the event that it doesn't work out: precisely the same thing the one ASKING for the prenup is doing.

Slander is inaccurate untruths - what the Pope did was quote history - and speak out against religions that force themselves on others by the sword. Also - the great thing about being the Pope is that you don't have to cowtow to overly sensitive special interest groups (radical Islamics) who blackmail politicians into submission through violence.

That's one facet of political conservatism, the part that's focused on economics. But what about social conservatism, which seems to be more about upholding select traditions and instiutions? That's the paradox of modern conservatism. Political Islam resolves it by simply adopting an authoritarian political approach. Most western conservatives (many of whom have at least some socon leanings) just skip over it. I agree with Blackdog's theory: if you wanna oppress people's rights...BRING ON THE MUSLIMS - they can do it much more efficiently, effectively and squash any opposition.

new movie trailer... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5862460287603221198 enjoy

Pay no attention to Dog - an angry soul. He has no original ideas and just sits around and poo-poohs everything on this site.

Bush and Reagan were similar in two respects: 1. The problems they faced in their Presidencies were largely caused by lack of action by their predececors. 2. History is certainly kinder to them than the present - a la Mulroney.

THIS is a great characiture (sp?) of exactly what ails the left. Tlerance in the face of hatred. What layton doesn't realize is that if he swung by the cave he'd be shot before he could say "but i'm on your side"

What a pointless poll. Take a look around. When France says this century will be the "Chinese Century" what they really mean is "Oh please god not another American century" We have an entire group of Europtrash and Canadians who would see Iran develope a nuclear bomb just to SPITE the Americans. Thats a sick festering hatred which would never be bold-faced admitted in a poll like this. To admit that would be to reveal the true motivation behind such bizzare tolerance of Armegeddon-lovers like hmedinejad.

I'm referring to your tirade about bombing "Arabs" a little while back. Do try to keep up. How about 20,000 in Cologne against terrorism? 15,000 in Qatar? 150,000 in Morrocco? Look 'em up. What's racist about bombing Arabs if they are our enemy? They do it to Jews all the time. You lefties are so obsessd with PC you can't seem to get the "nuance" (sic). As for the protests - that's great news and a great start. Now if we could just erase the firebombings of the danish embassy and the pro Hezbollah behead enemy of Allah routines we'd be well on our way to some good PR I would encourage any kinds of protests by Muslims against terrorism. I also encourage the Muslims who infiltrate militants and turn them in - great job guys. Keep up the good work. We can solve this thing yet!

Black dog: Iran wants Nuclear power for ENERGY? This coming froma country that's practically FLOATING on oil. I think you're confused about my other points because you seemed to ramble a bit and seemed a bit frustrated. Let me clear i up: The difference between us and them (radical Islamists) is that they have the will of the people - people ready and willing to blow up their own childeren for a cause (SEE "The Mother Of The Cause" Hamas MP who used to have 6 childeren but sent 3 into Jewish pizzarias to self-detonate). On the other hand the Michael Moores of the world get so squeemish over a few body bags (it IS a war Mikey) and want to run home to mommy. That's the point - Bin Laden was correct: In a long war, the Strong Horse wins, and THEY are the strong horse: the will of the people.

As opposed to your intentional racism. I see, so perhaps they should issue public statements or press releases decrying terrorism? Hold demonstrations? Maybe key figures in the Muslm community could write editorials about how the majority of the planets 1.5 billion Muslims are peaceful? Oh wait: they do that already. But that's not good enough, apparently. Here's the thing: Islam isn't like Catholicism. There's no central authority for believers to follow, no single doctrine to adhere to. No one group can possibly speak for all Muslims, thus the difficulty in acheiving some unified front against terrorism. What's racist about pointing out groups that hate us? Man you've twisted so far you're not sure which way is up. Not sure about you, but I don't call 10,000 protesters in dearborn michigan waving Hezbollah flags a good "anti terroism" message. Or the Toronto Danish Cartoon protester who said "We won't stop until the world obey's Islamic Law". Not sure which column to put that one in but it's safe bet it's not in the "pro Canada" section.

Let's get something straight here. I think the Liberals and the left like to hold an antquated view of race. "Immigrants and their families are all nice peaceful groups of who simply want to settle and make a little life running a corner store or driving a taxi cab. Only white people are capable of hate. There are no immigrants or their families that hate us, our belief systems or what we stand for." This old fashioned Lib take is accidentally racist in it's tone and makes some pretty generalizations. Can unassimilated populations of immigrants and their families hate us? Is it possible that there are vast groups in our society that don't align their beliefs with ours? That would see harm to us? That don't buy into being "Canadian", whatever that is? That actually identify more with societies thousands of miles away than Canada? Wll the factual answer is "yes". Otherwise, why would a group of Canadian born or British born Muslims plan to blow up innocent people? And why would 10,000 Muslims march down mainstreet in dearborn michigan waving Hezbollah flags? And why would London Muslims march down mainstreet carrying "behead to the enemies of Allah" signs? Why? Because they hate. Is it possible to tolerate the intolerant? Given the Danish cartoons, the Mustafa Shag Blow Up doll fiasco, the Burger King Chocolate Swirl incident I'd say our spineless society is certainly making a go of it. Is it possible that someone OTHER than a white person could hate other races or cultures? Of course it is. It's happening all around us every day. My question is: why is it racist to point out this clear and obvious hatred?