BHS

Kooky. All us lefties want the same thing.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So, you'd be happy with someone like say, Pat Buchanan in the Presidency? The problem with complaining about American interventionism is that it flies directly in the face of efforts like the One campaign and the Live 8 shows, which lefties generally support. American isolationism is in many ways just as undesirable as an enthusiastic American foreign policy. I'm guessing your really talk about American military interventionism. Which is fine, I guess, accept that it goes hand in hand with American foreign investment. You can't seriously expect American business to send ships into the world without protection from piracy, of both the private and national kinds. Furthermore, what you're demanding makes organizations like NATO obsolete, as America will no longer be able to participate in mutual defence arrangements with allied nations. Is that really what you want?

Becasue the two systems are not analagous. The Arrow was state of the art, miles ahead of its competition. It was replaced by an expensive system of questionable performance designed to defend agaisnt a non-existent threat. Sound familiar? So you're saying the Soviet threat was non-existent? Interesting. I'm not arguing the Arrow cancellation was a big mistake, one of the biggest ever. Canada would be on par with France today in our ability to sell weapons systems to the third world if we hadn't cancelled it. As I've pointed out in other threads on the subject, the BMD system fails even teh most basic cost-benefit analysis.The US government has spent an estimated $130 billion on variousversions of BMD since Ronald Reagan first dreamed of a perfect shield against Soviet missiles twenty years ago, and it's only now that they are starting to put the system to the test (which it has failed again and again, even under the most controlled circumstances). Given the microscopic threat of an ICBM attack, the costs of the program to date and its failure to perform, at what point do you say enough and pull the plug on what is clearly a technological and practical dead end? As an aside, many, right-wingers in particular, like to cite overspending on the military as a key factor in the fall of the Soviet Union. According to Janes, in 2005 the U.S.A. will spend more on its military than the rest of the world combined. Methinks the U.S.A would be wise not to ignore the lessons of history. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There's a big difference between spending a lot, and spending more than your economy can sustain. I didn't hear anything about the Russians having decommissioned their nuclear arsenal. Google news listed the top story being that the Russians were working on their long standing plan to cut down to 1500 warheads. As long as nukes are in the ground, ready to fly, then how can you say the threat is microscopic? Even if they never intend to make a strike, accidents can happen. Again, how is missile technology a dead end without a counteracting technology to cancel it out?

Please note that I didn't link Saddam to Al-Qaeda in my "podium". I said Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism, which he most assuredly did. That Saddam supported terrorism, pursued WMD, had not verified the destruction of his WMD stockpile, and posed a threat to neighbouring countries are verifiable facts, not lies. Saddam was not taken out during the first Gulf War because George Bush Sr. chose to play by the rules mandated by the United Nations, stating that the mission was to end when Iraq's armed forces had been removed from Kuwait. This was undoubtedly a mistake, but it's a nasty double standard on your part to ask the question, in a thread where you've done nothing but defend the inviolability of Iraqi sovereignty. I've given you my own take on what I considered important facts before the war, and why I believed and still believe that the war was the right thing to do. If you and every other anti-war type want to keep kicking a dead horse, concentrating on the missing WMD issue and doggedy insisting that only a positive Iraq/911 link could justify the invasion, to the exclusion of all other issues, then there's nothing more that I can offer to you. If you choose to limit our debate of the rightness of the war to two as-yet unfinished topics, then congratulations. I hope you feel as fully justified in your convictions 20 years from now. I know I will. As for the present, I can't be bothered to go any further with this thread.,

The fact that the Arrow was cancelled to support some type of missle defence that was eventually cancelled due to it's inefectiveness is the same reasons it will not work today. It is also interesting to know that the Arrow was a superior aircraft at that time. The F-104 that eventually took the place of the Arrow was inferior to the Arrow. This was known before the cancellation of the project. It was also known that the BOMAC and SAGE system end up costing Canada more than the Arrow project in the long run. Notice that the Americans also abandoned the BOMARC/SAGE missle plan after some time. Proving that is was all a waste of time and money. Same deal today. Don't be fooled by them. MDS is a waste of money and is a system that will eventually be scrapped/replaced by something else. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's quite an argument, except it doesn't pan out. Every new technology is expensive by comparison to the advancements that follow. But you don't get the advancements without the initial, expensive effort. I've already explained why I feel the effort is worthwhile, so I have nothing more to add.

eureka: I'm taking some time to go over your posting history. Very interesting so far. Hawk has done a nice job of supplying a preliminary rebuttal. I will have more to add later. PS: your final comment, implying that Hawk and I are being unserious in discussing this topic, is ridiculous given your own lightweight contributions to the discussion so far.

Ghosthacked is correct, we're getting off track. I don't understand how the Avro story bolsters any argument against MDS - in fact, it appears that you're adding fuel to my fire. If it was shortsighted and wrong to cancel the Arrow project, how can you turn that around and argue that it's a good idea to do the same thing to MDS?

Saudi Arabia was and is still considered an ally of the US. Iraq was not. Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia's government colluded with Al-Qaeda? That's quite a charge. Are you saying that the US government has a policy of giving aid and succor to terrorist organisations? That's quite a charge. Better safe than sorry, eh? There's a clear difference between intent and outcome in this case. That Saddam ended up without his prized nukes is not important. The fact is, Saddam had a history of attempting to acquire WMD, and as long as he was in power there remained a chance that he would eventually succeed. This was an unacceptable situation. I'll remind you that your heros in this little drama, those brave nations that fought most fiercely to keep the US out of Iraq, were far more complicet in his acquisition of weaponary than the US ever was. Your position that Saddam's brutality was carried on American shoulders is a trope. And even if it is true, that the US is ultimately responsible for Saddam's tyranny, doesn't that oblige them, morally, to go in a fix the problem? As for terrorsim "getting worse", well, it's always darkest just before the dawn, as the old saying goes. We'll see who was correct in times to come.

My whole point is that any link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq was IRRELEVANT. You have the reading comprehension skills of a pre-school student, I'm supposed to be embarrassed? As for research, why don't you try looking a little further than the Democrat fellatio artists of the leftist American MSM? There was never any question that Iraq and Al-Qaeda had covert connections, as outlined in this article: http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.htmlhttp://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html Main quote: "Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it." So the Sept. 11 commission, specifically charged with investigating the events leading up to 911, found no evidence that they chose to classify as "credible" of a collaberative effort between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, in regard to the planning and preparation for 911. Which is entirely consistent with what I've said.

Why not? I think I've made my beliefs on this matter pretty clear in previous posts. Bad analogy alert. Perhaps your analogy would work if, in addition to giving people on welfare assistance, the government of Ontario gave them guns. Individuals are responsible for their own actions, though social circumstances amy be a factor in influencing their choices. When it comes to nations and regimes, though, western interests habitually facilitate crimes when it suits their interests to do so. It's the way of the world, I suppose, but obviously not a workable one. As for cutting of communication, I don't think that's possible. W2hat we need is a policy of constructive engagement. Good call. My analogy was flawed, but you've gotten the gist of my point - it is incorrect to assume a patron should be held responsible for a protege's later actions, especially when those actions have been denounced by the patron. But you haven't explained why. In essence you're stating that your position, that the war was illegitimate, is a given and that I have to work to prove otherwise. I disagree with this line of reasoning. However, in the spirit of fair play I'll rise to your challenge anyway. I have an inkling that your position is based on the situation where France's threat to unilaterally veto a Security Council resolution, a resolution that would have given an unnecessary extra sheen of approval to the operation, resulted in that unecessary extra approval not being given, which is pointed to by the anti-war side as being a breach of "international law". Again, I disagree. The approval was already explicitly present in previous Security Council resolutions. Is that sufficient? Well, in Britain, as the USA, the choice was between two pro-war parties. In other words people didn't have an avenue to express their anti-war sentiment (I'm aware there are other parties, but they dion't realy count for reasons I shan't get into here). All these cases illustrate the great flaws in western representive democracies: the people cannot pick and choose which policies to support: they are stuck. But it also raises the point that legitimacy goes beyond simple public approcval. If I may channel Hugo for a second, if 99 people out of 100 vote to murder the 1, does that majority approval make that course of action legitimate? You seem to be confusing legitimacy with morality. A government might have a legitimate mandate to carry out all sorts of acts, none of which are morally acceptable upon reflection. It is then the duty of the electorate to make their moral outrage felt at the ballot box, which in turn will affect the decision making strategies of future administrations. President Bush and Congress had the authority to take the nation into war based on a prior history of being given that permission by the electorate. There was more than a decade and numerous elections between the first Iraq invasion and the second, and yet the electorate did not indicate a policy change was necessary to prevent further involvement in Iraq. In fact, President Clinton signed a bill in 1998 making it official US policy to promote regime change in Iraq. Where was the anti-war crowd then? Nations don't act morally. They act to serve their interests. those actions have moral implications, but moral consideratiosn are seldom, if ever, the key driver of policy. As for alternatives, I don't know. I know the status quo is unsustainable. And I'm sure we'll have to come up with alternatives once we come to the end of the road we're on now. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree, accept to state that the status quo in Iraq is likely to be sustained for years or even decades. But the future is always uncertain.

Ghosthacked: If you can't be bothered to read and grasp the whole thread, I can't be bothered to rewrite everything just to respond to your post, except to say that further to my statement that I don't believe the American invasion was illegitimate, I also don't believe that the American government lied about their intentions. If that was your perception, perhaps you ought to try a variety of news sources.

Sure thing! Visit my site, www.HotKimmy.com, for pictures and video! Yes, I got that. Lighten up. I was just having a little fun. Is this really a Federal Political issue? And, should it be? If so, then what should (or could) our government do to combat obesity? Aside from the obvious-- public information campaigns (the Participation couple are probably looking for work...)-- what would people suggest? -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I peeked. You're wicked hot. The guvment SHOULD stay the hell out of my pantry. What they PROBABLY WILL do is treat obesity like smoking, and added layer after greasy layer of taxes to "luxury" food items. Fuckers. Then they'll figure some way to tax internet porn, for health reasons (shurely), and everything I love will be out of my reach. UPDATE: I just reread this post and spotted my double entendre. (he he!) UPDATE II: It looked bigger on the monitor. UPDATE III: I'll shut up now.

Dude, you got threadjacked! Sorry, I thought this was an open forum. I'm removing this thread from my subscription list.

Leave it to a Liberal-supporting knee-jerk anti-American to go ad hominem first. "Ignorant"?? "Duh, America is better"?? Why don't you try responding to the posts? I have a feeling you'd be singing a different tune if we'd just been throught the better part of forty years of PC rule. You'd be screeching your head off about how lousy our system was. I know your type. All smug rhetoric that you picked up reading Noam Chomsky and that you don't understand. That being said; I'd like to know what your criteria for success and failure are, that you can claim that America is a failed experiment. How can you seriously claim that America is anything other than the most democratic nation on Earth? Oligarchy? Are you insane? Let's see: the American federal system has three elected bodies, all three of which are elected in different ways and approach legislation by different rules, all three of which are able to create and submit bills, and all three of which must approve of legislation. The voters have three different ways of electing their government to ensure that decisions are made with their best interests in mind. Somehow, bills make their way through this obstacle course and become law. In Canada, we have one elected body to represent us at the federal level. The PM has the authority to appoint the Head of State and Members of the Senate, which he invariably stacks with yes men and party loyalists. The Head of State has no decision making authority whatsoever. When a party forms a majority government, the Prime Minister, if he wishes, can call every piece of legislation a Confidence motion to force his back benchers to vote with the government. All of this effectively means the PMO has absolute authority to make law. The President of the United States is widely viewed as the most powerful man in the world, due to America's ability to project a strong military and economy into foreign affairs. But within the confines of his own federal government, he has far, far less power than any Westminster PM. And yet you fiddle with arguments about committees. Classic. Yes, the American Senate are a bunch of lice-eating Neaderthals, but it's still a hundred times better than a House of Lords filled with in-bred fops and wackos who got the job because they sprang from the correct loins. Some democracy.

I agree, there is room in the American system for policy to be unduly influenced by NGOs and lobbyists. However, I think that a modified version of their system would suit modern Canada more than the system we have. Do you have any suggestions about how our version of the American system might look, and how we might be able to close the gaps in policy making?

Thread update: Reviewing the posts so far on this thread, it seems unlikely that Clarkson's operation was pushed to the top of the queue because her political stature. Some people have posted nightmare stories, but others have posted stories consistent with the turnaround time Her Grace experienced. UPDATE: A number of posters have stated a certain disgust at the concept of discussing health care turnaround times, as if it weren't a political topic in a country where health care is controlled and meted out by the government. Not surprisingly, these posters also appear to be Liberal or NDP party supporters.

Obviously not. Gratuitous Simpsons quote: "We do, we do!" By this same logic, the government of Ontario is responsible for whatever criminal actions are undertaken by people on welfare. But I like where you're going with this. I say we cut off all communication with these ratty little nations. To hell with 'em. In case you haven't been following the thrust of my arguments thus far, I don't consider America's invasion of Iraq illegitimate. The people of Spain elected a government, disapproved of their government's foreign policy, and turfed them at the first opportunity. I suppose the government's actions can be construed as illegitimate, in that they didn't hold an election before sending troops into battle. But not really. Representative democracy means the government has a mandate to make decisions, even if the decisions turn out to be unpopular. Spain's government acted and got spanked for it. I don't think you'll see Spain sending it's troops anywhere for a long time. How is that not a legitimate outcome? Then there's Britain, on the hand. You claim that the majority of Britons objected to the war. Yet Labour was re-elected. It may be that you are correct, and that the majority did object to the war but voted pro Labour for other reasons. But other than the election, how can you prove your point? The weight of evidence suggests that at the very least the war wasn't important enough to decide the election. So how was Tony's decision to go to war illegitimate? Since you seem keen to cut down the workings of representative democracy, and the capabilities of democratic nations to act morally, what would you have as an alternative? You seem to be arguing to poke holes in the way things are, without offering constructive alternatives.

There was much to admire in the man, but he wasn't a god. The government can't make the economy grow any more than it can make trees grow. The government, like the gardener, has only the power to trim and pluck and restrict.

Who's chasing a pipe dream now? Global nuclear disarmament is as unlikely as effectively banning civilians from having guns. Even if you had the capability to destroy all weapons everywhere, the technological know-how to recreate them still exists. Our nation, Canada, takes the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission very seriously. The Human Rights Commission is regularly composed of and chaired by some of the world's worst "human rights" abusers. (If you want to talk about canards, "human rights" is a biggy. Hence the scare quotes.) This is but one aspect of the ways in which the UN has served to legitimize the world's worst regimes. I find it interesting, by the by, that you think the democracies of the world have created the UN to provide a "veneer of legitimacy" to their actions. This will no doubt be a sticking point between us in future discussions, as I believe the actions undertaken by democratic states are prima facie legitimate and require no such veneer.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that we let her die. The question being discussed is whether she was allowed to jump queue because of her position in government, when the need was not pressing. This is a very important, moral question. The entire justification for a publicly funded health care system is it's "moral" element. If the people who, by law, have created a dearth of vital services for the general public, are allowed to place themselves at the front of the line "just because", then what does that say about the morality of the system?

True, no nuclear capable nation has ever dared to test US resolve in a nuclear confrontation. But it's a little too comfortable to conclude that no nation ever will. Why not develope the capacity to guarantee that missile technology has become obsolete? Your desire to focus on other priorities has merit. There are always other things that government money could be spent on. Think of all the billions of dollars that have been pissed away by NASA, that could have been donated to starving African dictators instead. And yet, we may one day find that we can't live without the technologies we developed in the exploration of space. I think it's a worthwhile gamble, as is the possibility of putting ICBM technology on ice forever. I'm hoping the UDN will forego the creation of anything like a Security Council, an idea that looked great on paper in 1948 but which has proven to be worse than useless in practice. I'm *hoping* that a generalized system of voting can be put in place that will moot the need for unilateral vetoes.

I believe representational democracy is the best form of government. I think the Americans have the right idea, electing seperate entities with individual powers that act to check and balance each others' decision making capabilities. The major flaw in the Westminster system (our system) is the reliance on personal integrity as a mitigating factor in decision making. Concentration of power in the PMO is inevitable, and the system falls apart if the political players have no sense of honour or shame, as PM Crouton illustrated during his tenure.

Just picking nits here. You're use of the word "indigenous" implies that the so-called Palestinian Arabs are the original inhabitants of the area, and ignores the fact that many cultures have called the country now known as "Israel" home throughout recorded history, including the Jews. Furthermore, since the Jewish state was built from the ground up during years of struggle (read terrorism) against the British, it's hard for me to accept the idea that the Arabs were suddenly pushed aside as if by external conquest, which is to me the gist of your post.

Every politician says he isn't going to run, right up until he announces his intention to run. Even so, as I've said, his heart condition is a serious problem. I predicted in 1999 that Bush would win the presidency based on nothing more than him being the son of a former president. Americans have a serious love/hate relationship with the notion of royalty and dynasty. I've never seen a serious study done on the topic (indeed, I don't know how it could accurately be done) but I believe a small but significant advantage goes to a candidate who is directly related to a former president. Hillary has a lot of things going for her, aside from being a former first lady. Since her election to the Senate, she has made a serious effort to distance herself from the hard Left of her party. She's one of the few Democrats who is openly in favour of keeping American troops in Iraq. She's nominally pro choice, but not enthusiastically. There's no indication she would be less fiscally conservative than her husband. The Hillary Health Plan is dead and she takes great pains to avoid the issue (though it will definitely be a thorn in her side). She stays away from the loopier elements within the Democrats whenever possible. She has made great efforts to improve her public speaking skills, and they've paid off. The final element, that goes hand in glove with her relation to a former president, is that she is a woman. Since the 1980's both parties have floated trial balloons nearly every election as to whether it was "time" for woman to hold the highest office. I feel that the "time" is now upon us. Hillary represents the perfect storm that will carry a woman into the presidency for the first time: she's the least distasteful Democratic candidate, related to a former (and still much loved) president, running against a testosterone-laden Republican party that has spent it's political capital on the war effort, and on deflecting the non-stop torrent of criticism directed at Bush. I think Hillary's biggest fight will be for the nomination within her own party, which is just loaded with crazies these days. If she manages to make it through the primaries, she's in. But then again, I was wrong about the Michael Jackson trial verdict.

That is something I would never bet on. Nobody expected or could reasonably have forseen '9/11' either. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A key difference between then and now is the degree of preparedness among ordinary citizens. Americans will never again accept a hostage situation, so big explosions using hijacked vehicles are out, and reporting things that look suspicious are in. And unlike the Brits and Spanish, Americans are often armed, and are much more willing (as a rule) to get involved in suspicious or dangerous situations. The American penchant for vigilantism is often a problem, but in this case it acts in favour of preventing terrorism. True, terrorists might be capable of a London/Madrid style bombing with small conventional explosives, but that wouldn't be enough to push the country back onto a war footing. Trying to stop individual crazies or groups of wannabes is nearly impossible, but the amount of damage they can inflict is not of the scale of terrorism that I was speaking of in my post. I should have been clearer. It is also possible that a terrorist cell (or cells) have suitcase sized WMD (nuclear or biological) and are holding back for a signal, but that would take extraordinary cool-headedness on their part given the level of scrutiny the FBI etc. are giving potential terrorist cells. I'd say it's a long shot.

I am not overweight, and I have a hard time finding pants that are long enough in my waist size (they are always too short, made for shorter people) Also, working out and jogging help keep you in shape more than most people would admit... ESPECIALLY jogging, even 15 mins every day and you will see a huge difference after a couple weeks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Word up. I've been going to the gym as regularly as possible for the better part of a year now. I do an hour of cardio every visit, burning approx. 1100 calories. And I don't think I could jog for 15 minutes straight (I get shin splints). Jogging is one of the most intensive cardio exercises you can do, other than flat out running.