Mad_Michael

One small difference... Following Bush's plan involved killing lots and lots of innocent people and involved a high risk outcome and a policy that lacked any consensus of support from intelligence services. Following Gore's plan doesn't involve killing anyone and doesn't involve any actual risks and comes with a wide consensus of scientific opinion. But I can see why they seem identical and thus, uncredible.

I think you just earned your right to be totally ignored by me henceforth.

I am a libertarian. The only difference between my view of libertarianism and that of US libertarianism is that I believe in liberty for individuals is a goal in itself. US libertarians generally believe in liberty for capital, and only incidentially support liberty for individuals - though only when it doesn't conflict with liberty for capital. Btw, the term 'Orwellian' is all about reversing the meanings of words to convey opposite meanings to what the words themselves mean. It has NOTHING to do with authoritarianism itself. Many can be authoritarian without being Orwellian. Indeed, many can be Orwellian without being authoritarian (though this is likely to be rare).

Yes, this is generally true. Only it is HALF the problem. The other half of the problem with Israel and Palestine is the zionist dream of Israel for Jews - and no Arabs allowed (or only enough allowed in to provide manual labour to good Jewish companies). Zionist dreams of 'Greater Israel' including the full annexation and a Jewish majority population in the occupied territories of the West Bank is the Jewish equivelent of the Muslim dream of 'no Israel'. Indeed, it is quite interesting to note that 30-40-50 years ago, both the Israelis and the Palestinians flatly and categorically rejected the 'two-state' solution, both believing they had the power to eliminate the other. You will find no sympathy from me for the Israeli or Palestinian cause.

Besides, for anonymous internet posters who have to contend with the entire credible scientific community telling them they haven't a clue, there's nothing left to do but to swift-boat. Perhaps it's time to start questioning why Gore was just a journalist in the Vietnam war. Yes, good point. And Gore is fat and ugly. Therefore global warming doesn't exist.

The principle opposition to the legalization of marijuana in the USA comes not from the fact that people smoke it. That's part of it, but the primary impetus came from the oil industry (hemp-ethanol as a competitor to oil) and the pharmaceutical industry (pot as a competitor to big pharma for selling happiness). It was big oil that got pot made illegal in 1927.

I'd wager you are wrong. Who is caught for doping is more a function of what country they come from and in which country the competition takes place in, rather than who is doping or not. Olympic history is filled with many examples of this phenomena, the Ben Johnson & Carl Lewis case is probably the most clear-cut and blatant example.

Why would you say that? GB is the closest thing to the future dictated by Orwell in 1984 and it has been under labour rule. please do explain. The OP was a critique of the left - accusing the left of being 'Orwellian' regarding environmentalism. Thus, it is a 'rightwing' critique and thus, my amusement, given that it is the rightwing that has such a long history of actualy acting Orwellian.

If all terrorists were never to be talked to, how did Israel become a State? That required Western nations negotiating with terrorists.

Right. So it would remove western complicity in the Arab/Muslim dictatorships. But it we would still have huge problems in the Middle East, posing a significant danger to world peace - which is exactly the situation that drew the western troops in the first place. That's the problem when you let your ideology and/or bias dictate your policy. You end up with an ideologically satisfying policy that just doesn't work. Indeed, that's how we got the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Interesting that you apply the same principles of approaching the topic as those you presume to oppose. All designed to keep the tension high and the problems entrenched since so many people and parties profit from the status quo.

Rightwing accusations of Orwell and 1984 ring hollow to say the least. And as a general rule of thumb, the term "Orwellian" really only ought to be used in the context of a government act. The Live Aid concert project is a private enterprise.

The point was not to measure 'world-wide-total-threat-to-world-peace' assessment. I was assessing the direct threat to me as a citizen of Canada. In this respect, those other types I mentioned pose an equal or likely greater likelihood of actual or potential danger to me than all the Islamic terrorists in the world. Statististically speaking, the odds of an Islamic terrorist attack causing me harm is so close to zero as to be impossible to measure. However, there are 'abortion clinics' near where I live. Some whacko trying to blow one of those up (or take rifle shots at some doctors there) is a very real possibility of danger to me personally. Just trying to keep some perspective here.

The Byzantines were not the spirtual founders of Christianity. Muhammend is the equivalent of Jesus Christ in Islam. The point is that the Byzantines ruled over all of the Middle East. The political principle of the 'divine right of kings' was absolute throughout the Middle East region and people long before Islam came along. The term divine right is not really used in Islam. I used to term illustrate the idea that there is a much stronger connection between the religious leadership and the political leadership in Islamic society. Yes, I'm perfectly aware of this. It would be more clear to state that within the Islamic world, there is no recognition or acknowledgement of the principle of separation of Church and State. It just doesn't exist. The application of the term 'divine right of kings' is completely inaccurate to apply to Islamic culture since it asserts that the King's own viewpoint would trump the word of the Koran and that is not so.

Good gosh is this thread for real? Do people actually take this crap seriously? The first post should be enough to consign this thread to the trash heap of obscurity without a single post in reply. But five pages later, it looks like people are having fun. When it comes to white supremists - NEVER give them the platform that they crave. Every post to this thread just bumps it back to the top so that it stays current. Racists depend upon mindless repetition to inculcate their views into the mainstream. Every poster in this thread is contributing to this (and yes, I realise that I'm contributing to this so no need to reply to inform me of this fact - I post this quite reluctantly, only since it seems necessary).

As I have pointed out above, the present system, while it may contain some distortions, contains far less distortion than the proposed 'multi-member-multi-vote-semi-proportional-rep' system which makes a mockery of any principle of parliamentary accountablility to the voter. As far as I'm concerned, the only good use for voting is to 'throw the bums out'. Our present system is rather efficient and effective at doing so. The proposed 'multi-member-multi-vote-semi-proportional-rep' system is designed entirely to protect party elites from the indignity of being thrown out of Parliament and thus, is absolutely the worst possible choice. Parliament ought to serve the will of the people, not the will of our political elites.

The enemy of your enemy is NEVER you friend.

Rather trite coming from one of Canada's most notable and consistent warmongers. Fact is, if the cause is just, then casualties are acceptable. If the public loses faith in the mission (which appears to be the case here), then not even a single casualty is worth it. In other words, if you want to understand why Canadians may be upset about 'comparatively' light casualities on the Afghanistan mission, the answer does not lie in the traditional conservative ideology answer (attack liberal education system). The answer lies in the mission itself. If anyone can state what the mission these days with a straight face, I'd be impressed. A just war and a meaningful mission? Canadians will support it, no doubt of that. But Canadian soldiers dying for a mission that is turning out to be impossible due to the USA not working from the same playbook as NATO is, and of course, the US Iraqi quagmire (along with US ally Pakistan) is having a 'spillover' effect to contaminate the mission in Afghanistan. Canadians have a right to be highly skeptical of Canadian political and military leadership and their mantra of 'stay the course'. Ottawa is starting to sound like George W. Bush on this issue while Canadian soldiers die for no good reason. The Afghanistan mission began as a just war with a clear and responsible mission. It isn't any more. It is just a sideshow for George Bush's most excellent Iraqi adventure now and few have the guts to admit it. As a final note, I will point out that Canadians were anguished over casualty rates in WW1 and WW2, almost to the point of riots and bringing down the Government. To say that Canadians 'accepted' these casualties without question suggests that Lorrie Goldstein has as much trouble with actual factual history as he is accusing others of.

I find it interesting that the crux of US critique of global warming theory is predicated upon attacking Al Gore. Even if you prove that Al Gore is a complete idiot, moron, fool and/or anti-American, that doesn't change global warming theory one whit. Though, apparently it is sufficient for US government policy. That is scary.

Although true our defense industry did suffer a blow with the arrow, it's still there as much as tolerated by Canadians, i think the frigs are good example, along with Canada's version of the M-16 manufactured by diemaco Canada, or the ADDATS system by oerlikon canada. US products manufactured in Canada under US license. Except Oerlikon - they are British or Swedish. Same thing though. Their license. Small arms and equipment don't matter much to the US military-industrial complex. They want to control the big-ticket items. This is absurd. 1. Canada will not buy a fully built ship 'off the shelf' from the USA - that's not how naval procurement works. 2. US officially opposes application of Canadian forces to Canadian goals. See Arctic sovereignty issues.

Like I said above, this analogy is unserious and unworthy of reply. And it is now becoming vulgar. This is very colourful. Please cite. You said it, not me.

OK, here's the logical link between the two: both are obvious and glaring examples of Western interference in the region. You hold that Iraq's invasion of Iran was a western proxy war? That's colourful - and a perfect demonstration of why I can't take your argument very seriously. You are grasping. You might as well call the Iraq-Iran war a Russian proxy war or a Chinese proxy war since they sold as many or more weapons to the combatants as western nations (illegally) did. I believe Sweden was a significant arms supplier to both sides. I don't know. But I do know that every single western soldier in the Middle East (save the US invasion of Iraq in 2003) is there at the expressed invitation of a Middle Eastern government. You seem to avoid this point in order to pretend that western troops are 'invading' everything. I'm not obliging their wishes with anything. Nor am I justifying their actions. I'm only explaining what is going on since you have a very colourful and selective way of interpreting 'facts' You just don't get it. No one doubts the fact that the western powers are up to their eyeballs in the Middle East right now. No one doubts that the fact that this is a huge problem for 'world peace' and that it complicates all the complex problems of the middle east. I have never denied this. Your whole argument here seems predicated on you pretending that I'm denying this. You have never offered any argument against the fact that all of the existing problems in the Middle East pre-date the arrival of western powers. You just want to pretend that this isn't so. And that is why I find discussing this topic with you to be a waste of time. Actually, the US invasion of Iraq is a quite extraordinary unique event. This is progress. You are, for the first time in this thread, acknowledging that the Arabs/Muslims have a bit of a problem of their own. And that's why blaming 'us' for everything is absurd. Until people can actually look at the Middle East without partisan bias and/or selective 'blinkers' on, I can guarentee nothing will ever change there. Indeed, it is likely only ever to get worse. With or without western military power. If USA cuts off military/political support of Arab/Muslim dictatorships, those dictators will just turn to Russia or China to supply them with same. Indeed, they have already done this at times and are presently engaged in doing so as 'insurance' against US pullout. Like I said, pulling out all western troops from the Middle East won't change nothing (save Iraq - which is a particularly complex case). Those troops would just be replaced by other non-western troops because the Arab/Muslim dictatorships need them to survive against their own people.

The analogy failed to do this. It spoke of some absurd situation occuring on my doorstep. Apparently you are wrong. It is by definition. It is to me.

So, on the off-chance that engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood cannot guarentee a treaty resolution, you have decided that the engagement is useless? That's rather sweeping and reveals your bias. You just don't want to see any engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood. You are just going to keep on posting 'technical' objections as a way to hide the fact that you just don't like it. Not particularly surprising. I expected your line of argument as the most likely one that Bush policy supporters would take. So, lets see if I understand your argument correctly here... Engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood is a bad thing (or useless) because the Muslim Brotherhood cannot guarentee their side in a treaty negotiation. However, treaty negotiation with the Muslim Brotherhood is not necessary because treaties are useless. Very interesting - and entirely circular. And you wonder why I keep saying that the reasons you give are not your real reasons? You appear to have decided you don't like the idea and are grasping at various justifications trying to make your bias appear justified.

What is poisoned? What Americans blew up Iraq? Why searh for logic in setting things upside down? It's really simple. Interference by foreign powers creates tensions in the region. These tensions are sometimes exploited by the authoritarian regimes. The cause is the interference, the effect is its manipulation by the regimes. Without one, there would not be another. You appear to shift between the Israel-Palestine issue to the US-Iraq issue to the Iraq-Iran war at will. These are all very different things, yet you just jump from one to the other as if they are all identical. Which ever one I address, you just switch to another one. Blair's appointment does not include any mandate for addressing the Israel-Palestine question or the issue of Iraq. But these are the issues you keep raising. No, I'm operating purely on facts. Earlier in this thread I listed current ongoing conflicts which can be traced directly to some incident of foreign involvement. And I have shown that the vast majority of the core 'problems' in the Middle East that you take issue with originate in the Middle East prior to the arrival of the Western powers. Yet all you can do is blame the Western Powers and pretend that they are the cause of everything. Removal of every western soldier from the Middle East would not solve any problem in the Middle East. Western soldiers were mostly invited into the Middle East by Middle Eastern dictatorships in order to help them address Middle Eastern problems. Yes, the presence of western powers in the Middle East complicates and makes every problem worse. But since they didn't create the problems, removal of the western powers will not remove the problems. The core problems are indigenous to the region. So, the West installed the Ottomans in Turkey? Or Mohammad Ali in Egypt? Or the Ayatollah's of Iran? Or the House of Saud? Methinks your biased view of Middle Eastern politics and recent history is rather sketchy. Indeed, one might say it is rather selective with the facts. You're right. I consider western paternalism to be as obnoxious as Islamic absolutism. But as I noted above, apart from the US invasion of Iraq, every western soldier in the Middle East is there through the invitation of some Middle Eastern government. I don't have a problem with this. My foreign policy view can only be described as realpolitique. That means I'm in favour of whatever works well. Unfortunately, the majority of the authoritarian Arab/Muslim dictatorships (save Iran) demand/beg/pay for western military support for their regimes. By your own argument, the Middle East is far more recently engaged in mass destruction (Iraq vs Iran war) where WMD's were used against civilian populations. Really, can't be said any better. Who benefits from the mess in Iraq? Maybe contractors linked to administration and making starbucks at the expense of taxpayers whose children are dying in the doomed war? If you saw Fifth Element you may recall the episode in which Zorg demonstrates the benefits of mess on the ground. Nothing happened so far to convince me that it's some noble ideals and not the plain old urge to control everything (and grab a good chunk of juicy stuff while at that), that's at work here. Again, you selectively choose one example and ignore the multitude of counter-examples available. The US invasion of Iraq is only one element in the Middle East. Prior to 2003, that problem didn't exist. So, are you saying here that ALL of the problems in the Middle East are caused by the US invasion of Iraq in 2003? That's rather more absurd than your usual bias statements. The problems in the Middle East cannot be taken selectively and individually by place or historical time. To do so ignores the several centuries of history that lie behind every one of the 'problems' in the Middle East today. And besides, a few tens of millions in profits for western contractors pale in comparison to the enormous wealth and power that accrues to Arabic control of oil. What have the Arabs done with the vast wealth of their oil? They've used it to subsidize their dictatorships, to alternately repress or bribe their own people, to buy western weapon systems and to forment religious wars in neighbouring states within the region. But of course, the western contractors are to blame for absolutely everything. I said "follow the money" not follow the spare change.

The US does not "normally honor treaties". They have a notable history at renegging. President Bush has done so with several. And the US Congress has a long track record of not ratifying negotiated treaties. And a change in Administration changes everything. Thus, the US is in precisely the same position as the Muslim Brotherhood here. Neither side is able to speak authoratively or 'bindingly' on behalf of their respective side. Any agreements made may be ignored by both sides - indeed, that is highly likely. So, again you try to defend your 'hypocritically high bar' of opposition. So I repeat, please tell me what your real reason is for opposition. Your 'technical' objections keep backfiring on you (and exposing a hypocritical judgement standard). To paraphrase Rumsfeld here, 'you don't get to make treaties with the opponent you wish for - you have to make treaties with the opponent that actually exists'. Indeed, it looks to me like the Muslim world must re-establish the Islamic Caliphate before you'd be willing to talk to them. Like I said, you keep raising hypocritically high bars against any engagement here.