betsy

Forcefully? Is that what they buying land...or only land bought by jews? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4872938.stm http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/israel/...law-7-5-01.html This is not a civics class and you are not our professor. Summarize your research. Why do you expect us to read your sources? If you make a claim that can be refuted and /or you want to be taken seriously, you should provide something to back it up. Same as your "opponent." You are not obliged to read their source...same as we are not obliged to read your source. However, if we do not...then we cannot really argue about it. Reading provided sources is letting you know where the other is coming from. If you do not know that...then you've got no argument. You cannot refute or rebutt something you know nothing about.

Palestinian women do not wear the Burqa. Do you know what one looks like Betsey? Please provide a link to a pic of what you think is a burqa and then a link to a picture of someone you think is a Palestinian woman. I am not surpised you would think the Geneva convention rules need to be revised since you are an Israel supporter and Israel has never adopted the Geneva conventions. How can you revise something you never agreed to in the first place? You do not have a seat at the table, Betsy. Whether it is a burqua or not, the news still stated that they had provided clothes for the men to disguise themselves as women. The point is still the same. Burqua, sack, 70's muu-muu...whatever they call it, it is! Well I know I don't have a seat at the table....same as you. Unless seating at our dinner table. I know this forum is like a...coffee table. We're all gathered with our latte or our tea or our beer and venting to our hearts' content! We are discussing!

Well I'd say that the pressure on Bush due to Americans turning from his policy....plus the continued global display of hate towards him were taken into great consideration by both rogue states...and calculatingly used it to "test" the water again. Had the Americans unitedly stood behind their president, and showed a united strong America come hell or high water (including shoving the UN aside)....I don't think North Korea or Iran will be daring enough. Bush had already shown he doesn't need the approval of the UN. All he needed was the rally of his own citizens behind him! One thing sure though, so far there hasn't been any attack on US soil after 9/11. Iraq proved a significant deterrence enough.

Oh, I forgot! The UN! The laughable, pathetic, hypocritical, dithering, corrupt, biased UN! Include the UN....to the various factors that gave other rogue states like Iran and North Korea to get bolder.

North Korea and Iran...the two other axis of evil. I wouldn't say the attack on Iraq had made them bold. Check out the timing when they started getting bolder in insisting to "walk the same road." It started right after the popularity of Bush in the USA had gone down dramatically and Americans were clamoring for change! Saying Iraq is a mistake! If you were Iran and North Korea...wouldn't you seize the moment? Here you have a weakened president...because his citizens not only do not support his policy...but are now demonizing him as well! Of course the terrorists learn from Vietnam! From American reactions that led to its end and the effective type of warfare! The vietcongs were "invisible" then....that's why it was a hard war to win...and the terrorists are "invisible" now! So, couple that with an unabated global hate and global bashing for Bush...I'd say thanks a lot! I think I know who helped made Iran and North Korea much, much bolder...and the world in a much greater danger today!

But actually, I've already touched on that. It's there, in one of my replies. You've yet to explain yours though....why it wouldn't. Anyway, what do you mean, "giving up the fight to find the terrorists?"

Today on Question Period, Craig Oliver interviewed the chairman of the Kyoto thingy (De Boer), in Nairobi, the one that Ambrose is going to attend. Craig Oliver, obviously wanted to skewer Ambrose through this guy attempted several questions in various way or form...trying to get De Boer to criticize Ambrose and the Conservative Party. This guy instead said that most of the 15 members of Kyoto are all saying that they are having a hard time meeting the target...and are also doubting the attainability of it! This guys said that they need to include domestic policies...which by the way, Ambrose already did in the new Act! This guy also insisted that as far as he knows, Ambrose or the Conservative Government have not backed away from Kyoto...but are still constructively communicating...and discussing! Looks like this guy is welcoming any other suggestions or input. Makes sense if most of your members are all failing, then better try something else! It's the anti-Harper media, yep politicising and using the environment issue to discredit the government...the peanut gallery er I mean the press gallery that is...whose noses are still out of joint and are all still out for blood! Taber interviewed Ambrose right after the interview with de Boer...and also tried to twist what de Boer had said (or she's got terrible listening skills). Ambrose had to correct her twice, in reference to what de Boer had said. Taber was abrasive with Ambrose, wanting to know if Ambrose was affected by the personal criticisms she got (that included her hair). And when Ambrose replied that it's all politics and that she's not affected by it, Taber said that Ambrose must've developed a thick skin then! Taber is unprofessional and so brazenly partisan...I just turned the tv off! I hardly tune in to MDuffy now that she's the one filling for him on a regular basis! Her screechy voice is as grating as her attitude!

True, people didn't vote CPC because they were for Kyoto. On the other hand, could they have anticipated the lame (even by CPC standards) Clean Air Act or anticipated that the former Canadian leader of Focus on the Family, an extreme religious group that does not believe in global warming, would be appointed Chief of Staff to the Environment Ministry? As reported in Christianity Today, less extreme religious groups than Focus on the Family are now being criticized by Focus on the Family for daring to suggest that there is good scientific evidence of global warming. Link: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/162005d.asp But do people really measure the "lameness" of the Act...or do they instead judge the practicality of it? Like if you tell me the Act is "lame"...I'll ask you, lame compared to what? Of course, compared to what the previous government had done! And what have they done?

Yes, and I think the surface is not "live-able" for so many years. I would bet that the USA...or maybe Canada...or England...or some Mid-East countries....or any other wealthy nations who have access to the technology and has the wealth to spend... have already made preparations to have a place to go, in case of a nuclear attack. Of course majority of us would most probably be gone, if not on direct impact...then maybe in matter of days..or months...or a few years.

Question Period Jane Taber said today that although the polls indicate that Conservatives are down, polls also indicate that not one among the Liberal leadership candidates are appealing to the public, thus, says Taber...seems that Harper really has nothing to worry about if elections were held today.

Remembrance Day is for soldiers who had fought and are fighting for us. It is also to remember that had it not been for them, we would not be having the kind of life we now have. When we look at the world, we realize how only a few nations are truly blessed living the way of life we now enjoy: appreciate it and be thankful. Preserve it and protect it. So many had died for it. Lest we forget.

That's why I called it the DOOMSDAY SCENARIO...and referred to this exchange between Brad and me as "bantering." Because it isn't real! He or I don't know from squat! It's just a discussion on first-strike gone bonkers! As for not doing anything...it might be the best for you. But who can really say if one could just sit still and sacrifice one's whole nation just so to ensure someone survives...and by that it means, we sacrifice ourselves to ensure that our enemies survive. It's kind of noble....but in reality, how likely is that going to play out. Human nature will tend to kick in: survival. There is always hope! Hoping it will be your own people who remain standing...whether only a handful is left. Besides, we are more prepared for survival than most of the enemies I would say. I would bet there are already huge bunkers (complete with supplies to last for who knows how many years for so many people chosen to carry on), made to withstand nuclear attacks. We've got more to offer with a handful of our people surviving...the human race had more chances of making it! So if it's about ensuring the survival of the human race....our side shouldn't be too quick to sacrifice itself. On top of that, if it ever came to that...we should make sure life is made less tough for the remainder of our people who manage to survive by taking out all the enemies before we go down in flames! If we want to be noble...that's the best way to go!

Or maybe they came from Asia too. It's possible. I've always wondered about how native Indians have asian features.

This is doomsday discussion..where hardly anyone will survive. Even if the US responded by launching its missiles....the missiles from the other side would have also been launched before the US missiles hit the target. And if the missiles hit each other in mid-air, those countries down below gets it. So it's really doomsday when we talk of nuclear. BUT the possibility of this doosmday scenario exists when lunatic regimes develop such capability. That is why pre-emptive attack is important. Strike them (not with nuclear weapons) before they get the chance to build up nuclear weapons. Bush most probably bought the world more time when he did Iraq. Whether Iraq had nuclear or wmd or not....just the action of the US for suspecting that Iraq has the weapons made other nations think twice before they stubbornly proceed to do so.

If Israel had its own way...and not bound to comply with any other countries' demand for restraint...we probably wouldn't be having this Mid-east headache now! I must say that I only feel such admiration for this tiny country that sits all alone....and having this tremendous generosity and capability to hold itself in check...although it knows that it could easily squash anyone in that region. So I guess, okay...no nuclear weapons then! BUT no more restraint demanded of Israel. Especially by the UN!

It's one thing if it's all conventional methods, and that Israel is allowed to fight back without restraint whatsoever...no nuclear weapons on all sides. But how sure are we that Iran doesn't have that capability? One that can easily reach Israel?

Well....check the options that you gave. And the 'best" choice that you wanted me to agree too...so much so that I could swear there is an arrow pointing "this way." Then read and understand what your sets of options and the scenario you presented really depict...along with what you say is the "best" choice among the three. You're the one who gave the options, the scenario and suggested the "best" choice.

Is that all you have to say? We're done now?

depends on what people continue. By doing nothing, we can be sure we're out of the game in your scenario. If it's a repressive regime like the Taliban that survives (and by choosing doing nothing almost ensures that)... then earth is better off making a fresh start! FROM SCRATCH!

That's what you say. Care to back that up so we can verify? Sounds like one of those conspiracy theories.

If it is lunacy to want to ensure survival...well maybe I am! In your view. I know that determination to survive is part of human nature. You're human, aren't you? Or is it just because you aren't a Jew...therefore you don't care how it must feel to be a Jew.

Jews aren't a race. Whatever.

I assume this means you advocate genocide against all Muslims (or would you qualify with 'just the bad muslims'?). All out war may come to pass, those without the stomach for it may lose because of it. I guess you miss the start of this exchange between Brad and I. We are assuming a particular scenario related to first-strike. Here's the scenario we're bantering about: Intelligence had relayed vital information that the enemy is going to launch a nuclear attack on us within 24 hours. What do we do? a) wait and see if it's true. strike now. (this is option b. Why is this icon appearing everytime?) c) set up a diplomatic talk and negotiation d) pray that they miss e) ____ any other option? If so, what?

We're back to morality again? Well I find it immoral to deliberately gamble on the existence of our nation and the lives of our civilians just because we "sympathise" with enemy civilians. In the old wars, enemy sympathisers are considered traitors. As for legitimizing use of nuclear weapons...legitimize my foot! You mean you gonna say: wait a minute! I say wait a minute there! Hold that finger! Think before pressing that button, sir. Yes sir, I know that we are being threatened of being wiped off the map....blown to smithereens. But think of the awful consequences, sir. Nuking the enemies before they nuke us will legitimize the use of nuclear weapons! If I were the president, you know my answer to that? Go ahead, sue me! Anyway....I can't believe no one is already supplying you-know-who and have been recruiting for who knows how long now!

Whether the strategy was flawed or not....you still cannot know more than I do that non-state actors wouldn't be coming to conduct their business. Once they know they've got a good plan to penetrate and cripple us....do you think they wouldn't do it...if Iraq did not happen? They know they've got a good strategy. They're "invisible." That's how they'd like to fight this war. You have presented no reasons why Iraq would deter terrorist attacks. Have you presented any reasons why it wouldn't?