Moderate Centrist

Japan has gotten off morally scot free from WWII. You must remember we're talking about an empire with crimes equal to Nazi Germany yet without the stigma. It's attitudes towards it's neighbors give many great cause for concern and they don't teach the history of the war accurately. With regards to the weapons issue: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/...10/china.japan/ I have not doubt the Japan of today is different and may feel justified in building up its' military. I guess I'm wondering what effect this will have in the long run.

Hello Mr. Farrius, US tradition is very isolationist but this view was largely swept aside as a result of WWII and the Cold War. The issue is very complex as the United States has interferred in other nations often at their request. When there is trouble in the world it is often the United States that gets called on to help. One possible solution is a stronger UN with more commitment in $ and troops from other countries. This will defer the responsibility away from the US. We are along way from this however. It must also be remembered that the US due to domestic energy consumption is reliant on foreign sources of fuel which it must maintain access to. Definetly no easy answers.

Hello, I would not suggest "the Devil you know" is moral or that we (Meaning the US/the west) should support tyrants. However I think perhaps leaving well enough alone or not getting involved in the first place can keep us out of trouble.

The US has asked Japan to send troops to assist in the rebuilding in Iraq. This is of great concern to Japan's neighbors who view this as a step toward a remilitarization of Japan. Even more so as Japan has never apologized for it's war time aggression and has resisted paying compensation to victims past(Korean comfort women) and present (from contaiminated weapons dumbs). Japan's constitution has forbidden it to use force to solve problems or build it's military beyond defense capability. In terms of dollars Japan is second only to the United States in Military spending. On of the issues that has come up is "Pre-Emption" and it's justification for increased military preparedness. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

It is important to keep things in perspective when speaking about terrorism and the terrorist threat. Terrorism is fundamentally a tool of the weak. While causing panic, pain, suffering and chaos it's concrete achievements are very questionable. One of the main reasons being is that governments rarely, if ever, give in to their demands There is no way for terrorists to bring down the western democratically elected governments. I doubt they would even be able to bring about the kind of change they seek in some of the less stable/non-democratic countries. We must also keep in mind the damage they can inflict - the 9/11 was spectacular however the number of killed were quite small ( I don't mean this to sound insensitive). Much of the rhetoric about terrorism is blown out of proportion and I would even go so far to say focusing our attention/resources in the wrong areas. Specifically- Russia: the the lack of security of it's weapons stockpiles. This is a very serious problem which doesn't seem to get much airplay. See the following: http://charleston.net/stories/040603/wor_0...06russter.shtml Many politicians seem to suggest the terrorist threat is the biggest challenge we've ever faced. This is blatant ignorance of 20th century history. To put things in perspective try reading Edward Teller's "The Legacy of Hiroshima" which was written during the cold war. In it he talks of preparing for nuclear attack in which millions, perhaps as many as a hundred million people would die. This was the thinking at that time. To get to the point I think 9/11 has provided governments around the world with the rational to develop new weapons, increase military spending and perhaps adopt Pre-emption as essential to their foreign policy. It is here where real trouble may be found, especially amoung states with shaky relations. Issues like the SALT and Missile Shields, although discussed in the context of terrorism, will have the most impact on relations between states. I've posted another topic on Japan where there are some small rumblings of this nature in Asia. It is also in International Relations.

Hello all, Can we get a source for the claim that the Saudi's (bin Ladin Family?) left the United States immediately after the terrorist attacks? Also, I think we must be careful about jumping to conclusions here. My understanding is that the Saudi Government and Bin Ladin Family have distanced themselves from him (Osama). How can you justify holding high level officials for something to which they themselves have not done? I think this would be diplomatically problematic to say the least. Many conspiracy theorists seem to forget that the United States foreign policy is largely based on RealPolitic which puts practical concerns ahead of moral ones. This however, again is not conspiracy in practice. I have been against the war in Iraq from day one and I also have been critical of the current US administration. A non-intervention/isolationist foreign policy turn, I believe would be of more use in US defense. Having said that I think we must look at the US relationship to the Saudi's in practical terms - namely in the house of Saud fell what would replace it? - an extremist regime which is much more dangerous. Last summer I saw Henry Kissinger interviewed in reference to the Iranian revolution - he said that yes the Sha of Iran was bad - however if he had not been overthrown we would see a moderate Islamic state in Iran today instead of the current Theocracy. The same situation occurs in Saudi Arabia. This again is why I tend to favor the "devil you know" theory and goes to another reason why I oppossed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. So just because there are links between the Saudis and the US I don't think it fits under the label of conspiracy.

I don't believe the court should interfer with what people think. The law should punish action not thought. Lots of negative statements are made about spouses in divorce cases so this is to be expected. Divorce always harms the child but I don't think special rulings are required here.

CameronI don't see any major problems with the youth justice system. Please elaborate. As is well established youth crime is not on the rise in Canada or the United States. Are you suggesting we should base public policy on newspaper stories? CameronThis is a common arguement and has to be about the stupidest thing to be said regarding the issue of youth violence. Video games, television and Rock music do not CAUSE VIOLENCE. I think it is sad (although politically sensible) the Police, Parents and Politicians take this view. We have the laws now to deal with youth crime. There certainly may be an issue regarding enforcement but we don't need to bring in torture and repressive laws that affect the general public. As I've done before I challenge anyone on this site to produce any statistics which show youth crime or crime in general is on the rise in the United States and Canada. And let's have a source for it as well.

Firstly - conspiracy by it's very nature is based on paranoia, lack of evidence and delusion. There is no proof of a cure for cancer and no evidence that the government is hiding such a cure. It is not my duty to believe but yours to prove. End of story. Second - with regard to conspiracy; and I believe I made this point already, there is no doubt that the US Government (or any government for that matter) is capable of skulduggery or acts which lack any and all morality). The problem is the massive coordination it would take to pull of these so-called conspiracies. Human nature itself is the biggest barrier. It can't be done. Conspiracy theory is very interesting folklore but offers little practical insight into the world. I will say again - the claimant must provide the proof. I am required to do nothing except reject that such a conspiracy exits. This is how rational thought works.

Mr. FarriusNo arguement that people with cash can do better than people without. This is NOT equal to a cure for anything however. I'm not saying the United States isn't MORALLY capable of a 9/11 event. I'm saying it is impossible to pull this off and get away with it and furthermore there is no reason to conduct such an opperation. Conspiracy theory offers a very poor outlook of the world - one based on paranoid delusions and not reality.

Hi Mr. Farrius, Sounds like paranoid delusion to me. However, getting back to the 9/11 issue - I say again I believe it was irresponsible for the 5th estate to give creedence to this foolishness.

Well I think it's theory at best. I don't believe it and am not overly interested enough to research although I'll see what I can find.

Mr. Farrius I'll take a crack at responding. I think this claim is ridiculous but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - What scientific and economical "evidence" Let's have it!

Hi Daniel, Firstly I do not condone violence against anyone nor make light of gay bashing. Gays always had the right to pursue assault charges. If this wasn't being taken seriously it doesn't require more laws but rather that the police enforce the laws we already have and to be held accountable when they don't. I think all assaults are pretty serious regardless of who they are against. Marriage was traditionally looked on as the superior form of social commitment by the law and the public. I'm not saying this is right but it is true. One of the reasons most people I know opt not to marry is because they don't want that level of commitment and want an out of their relationships if need be. Politicians are not minority groups. Minority groups are smaller demographic communities within a larger one. I'd hardly call politicians in a democracy powerful.

Hi Daniel, I guess I wasn't clear. First - I don't need credentials because I'm not making any claims re: 9/11. I accept the following: The US was attacked by an extremist Islamic group (most likely Bin Ladins'). This attack was planned years in advance There was a failure of US security to prevent it due to lack of proper intellegence coordination. I do not accept the claim that the United States Government was deliberately involved and there has been absolutely no proof put forward to suggest that they were. "My experience" with conspiracy theorists as quacks is as follows: Outlandish claims based on little or no evidence (certainly no hard evidence) - Big Foot, Bermuda Triangle (Fraud), UFOs Claims put forward by "experts" who have little or no training in the topic they are researching. (UFOs, Bigfoot) Claims put forward in which the facts are changed to fit the theory and not the other way around. (JFK assassination) Generally poor research and a tendancy to "take the claimants' word for it" with little or no proof. (Bermuda Triangle) People with a world view which is so paranoid to be almost delusional. (UFO, Alien Abduction crowd, JFK crowd) Theories which give the government way too much credit. (UFOs and JFK) Theories which fail to take into account the more people involved in a cover-up or crime the less likely it will hold up. (Again JFK, UFOs) Theories which link people to events that have nothing to do with them. (JFK, 9/11) Conspiracy theories are often put forward so people can comfort themselves after a traumatic event or make money(ex: selling books and doing the talk show circuit). I must stress - I do not believe the US was involved in the attack on itself. That is all I am required to say. You must prove they were - I am not required to prove they weren't. I'm sorry but this is the way rational thinking works. My calling them quacks is admitted opinion, not fact. Conspiracy theories tend to arise where there is no proof and take on a life of their own. If you want to question me on specific conspiracy theories feel free although it may take us way outside the boundries of this discussion forum. I'll leave that to Greg.

James AllenWell I can give you one - This issue has no business being at the top of the governement agenda and taking up government time that could be better spent on real issues which affect many more Canadians. The homosexual community is the most powerful minority group in history that has pretty much hijacked minority issues from groups with much more to complain about. The government should be addressing the following: The Canadian military, The Economy, Education, Our aging population and the issues surrounding it. The quality of Canada's water supply and it's ownership Maintaining independance from the United States These are just a few. Gays have all the rights that the rest of us have. Let government ditch the fluff and get back to work.

Hi Daniel,

I'm a little disappointed that the fifth estate would give credence to these types of stories. It's been my experience that most conspiracy theories are put forward by quacks or people looking to make a quick buck. Something has to be remembered with regards to the United States staging the terrorist attacks - a conspiracy that big wouldn't hold togeather. The more people/agencies involved the greater the chance it will fall apart.

HI Krusty Kid, Agreed - cut down on the ranting cknykid. It is far to difficult to understand your point. Bottom line - the Nixon administration was not answering to any Jewish Lobby. Anyone who knows anything about Nixon knows he was often at odds with the Jewish community over their voting preferences. As for Jews making money - good for them. They haven't bothered me any so I'm not worried. Much of your post sounds like paranoia to me. The situation in the middle east is very complex and cannot simply be boiled down to a mass jewish conspiracy. This subject is of little interest to me so I'll withdraw for now.

Again my knowledge of Kissinger's actions is too limited to argue too strongly in his favor however comparing him with Pol Pot is ridiculous. Kissinger played international power politics and focused on the big picture. Perhaps this is a cold view of the world but to suggest that he is directly a mass murder is a bit much. Also, Kissinger's heyday of power was during the Nixon administration. If your suggesting this was a hotbed of Jewish conspiracy you must really be out to lunch -

cknykidI've heard the charge of war criminal thrown at Henry K before, most notably from Hitchens, but I think your comments here are a bit of a stretch. I don't know enough of Kissinger's activities to make a complete judgement execpt to say the above comment is extremely over - simplified. Comparing him to Pol Pot - please!

I think this is absolutely stupid and is important to note that this isn't being driven by other religious groups but rather a small minority of politically correct zealots.

Yeah right. There's money in drugs. As long as there is money in people will trafic it. I actually feel organized crime is one area the police should crack down on but it's a very difficult thing to tackle because of such wide public support for the services they provide and because the public takes such a light view of the real money making activities these groups engage in. The penal system is only one tool to combat crime and since most of the people at the top of the ladder never see jail time it doesn't make much of a dent. Alliance, I'm still waiting for those sources. People don't always piss on the police. I've always given them their due. I think people would rather have as little to do with them as possible though.

Hello Alliance, I may be a little dense but I'm not sure I follow your post? Since you speak on the Nazis perhaps you mean National Socialism? Please elaborate - what's the point? What does this have to do with Canadian politics and perhaps if you're discussing the issue of Islamic - Christian/Jewish conflict this belongs under Religion or International politics. Personally I don't feel endorsement or condemnation of religion by government is a good thing.

Hello Alliance, I'm afraid it's you who isn't listening. I've twice asked for a source for your information and you haven't provided one. Am I supposed to take your word for it? If what you say is true let's have the date of the incident. And again so what? Crime in Canada is not on the upswing. I'll have to do some checking on your claims for Edmonton's crime rate unless you'd care to back it up with some facts. And speaking of facts, it's a well known fact that crime is reported out of proportion to its' occurance. People "THINKING" the crime rate is up and the crime rate "ACTUALLY" going up are two completely different things. While the stories you cited may be unfortuate they do not sway my feelings in this matter. I share the view that the police are a nessessary evil. Yes we need a police force and I pay them my respects ... and no more. I have no interest in becoming a police officer. To those who do - good for them - it's a tough and rewarding career. However, the police have a history of corruption, abuse of power and harrassing the public. If they want to stop criminals fine but they don't need any more powers to do it. I have a pretty good idea of what police officers do - administrative work, paper work and settling domestic disputes and misdemeaners for the most part. As for protection from predators. What predators? Here is another myth I think you may believe in: Rapists, child molesters, kidnapers are strangers - WRONG Most of these people are known intimately to their victims. The idea of the predatory criminal is laughable and extremely rare. To give you a small taste of this consider the following: In 2002 35 Children were abducted by strangers while 429 were abducted by parents. The source for this statistics comes from the Garden of Missing Children Society and the site is: http://www.gomcs.org/english/GOMC-miss-stats.htm I happen to believe that society has gone too far in it's socially liberal attitudes but I hardly think people respect the police less now than they ever did. Unless I'm mistaken the period with the most anti-establishment thinking and violent social upheaval was the late 1960s and early 1970s. As for Tupac Shakur and 50 Cent - I don't care what they think. They're pop culture icons and therefore their opinions don't count to me. They can say whatever they want for all I care. If people are stupid enough to be influenced than so be it. As for my reading of the news. I have temporarily been out of touch with local Alberta news so I'm not up to speed.