Wilber

The Tutsis had conquered and ran the place long before the Germans got there. The Belgians governed much more severely than the Germans however and used the Tutsis to do a lot of the dirty work.

You say it is from a conservative standpoint. I don't. You may call him a conservative. He may call himself a conservative. That doesn't make him one in my book. He's just another guy with an opinion like you and I. We all have different ideas of what constitutes social change and what change is desirable. Abortion is legal and covered under Medicare, Has been for quite some time. Gay marriage is legal. By your own argument if you oppose abolishing them, you oppose social change. And what has been done about it other than promising a free vote in Parliament which as it happened was part of the platform this government ran on in the last election? The last sentence I agree with but then you are insinuating that everyone who is not a conservative is in favour of legalized abortion. I doubt it very much although it seems a majority of people are. That's one thing that bugs me about many in the so called "pro choice" crowd. It's not enough that you believe in free choice, they want you to be pro abortion. Are they that insecure that they need everyones approval? I read it. The link went to Random House when I tried it and came up "page not found".

Blaming the victim is a national sport in Canada. Get used to it.

Tell that to the Liberals or doesn't that apply to institutions they created like multiculturalism, the official languages act, the gun registry, the list goes on. How about Medicare, should we dump that because it requires government intervention? Of course, you don't have to be religious to believe that abortion constitutes taking a life. I just depends on when you think life begins. Religious people tend to believe that more strongly but they are not the only ones who do. They also see "marriage" as a union between a man and a women. So do many others. They just refuse to rationalize their beliefs. You think they should, therefore you think they should believe the same things you do. What makes you different from them? I believe in freedom of choice but that doesn't mean I approve of some peoples choices or don't have the right to say so. I agree, they can be vocal. Carolyn Parrish isn't vocal? She calls herself a liberal and got elected as one several times but that doesn't make her typical of all liberals. What thesis is that and why do you think it reflects the views of a majority of conservatives, whoever wrote it?

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. What is the matter with upholding traditions and institutions? They are what makes a country. You don't just abandon them to accommodate the flavour of the day. As far as being selective goes, you can make the same argument about those who choose to abandon them. No, its not just economics but that is certainly a part of it. It's anti nanny state, its a belief that there are consequences to ones actions that can't be blamed on others and those consequences should be proportional to those actions. Yes there are economic repercussions to those beliefs just as there are to liberal social beliefs but they are social beliefs that have nothing to do with religion. There are a lot of things that have to do with being conservative which have nothing to do with religion. I'm a westerner and consider myself much more in line with conservatism than any other political bent but I am not religious and a firm believer in the separation of religion and state. I think that is true of most people out west who vote Conservative and you are deceiving yourself if you label the majority of us as something other than that. So far from what I have seen, the present government has not acted in any meaningful way to apply a particular religious doctrine in the manner it governs, despite those attempting to give them that label.

That's the point, innit? Since 9-11, anyone of the left who attempts to tie terrorism with western policies WRT to the Arab/Islamic world is quickly labeled a "blame America-firster" or terrorist sympathizer. However, according to D'Souza, it's okay to blame America, provided the America you are blaming is the one that allows women access to birth control and abortions and treats gays like human beings: in other words, liberal America. If, as the hypothesis states, it is the "abuse of our freedoms" that "enrages our enemies", then the war isn't about east versus west, or Judeo/Christian values versus Muslim ones, but of conservative (and religious) ideologies versus liberal ones. Essentially, D'Souza is copping to the fact that western social conservatives and their Mulsim counterparts are on the same side. I don't agree with label "conservative". It's like calling all liberals commies. We didn't attack them because of their beliefs or their customs but because they attacked us. He's blaming the victim. Conservatism generally means less government involvement in society, not more.

All organized religions require people to be sheep to one degree or another. What they can be convinced to do only depends on their willingness to be led. What else can you say about people who will blow themselves up for the promise of virgins? They must figure it is the only way they will ever get laid.

The guy sounds more like a Liberal to me, he blames the victim.

Oh, they'll give the soldiers credit. They just might not reward the government that sent them there. How about the people who sent them there and have kept them there? There have been many governments in the US since the Korean War, which happened incidentally under a Democrat administration.

Who knows but if it contributes to peace in the region it's a good thing and worth doing. Too bad a lot of the free world won't give them much credit for it.

I don't think that 40,000 U.S. troops is as much of a threat as the the threat of a nuclear bomb being dropped on them is. That's just a guess though. Even the U.S. military has said they probably couldn't hold off the a huge onslaught without using a bomb. That's true but the fact that there were 40,000 American troops there let the North know what they could expect. The South's army is around 600,000 I believe. 40,000 is about 60% of Canada's total military.

Remember these folks? Boat People

Considering that they enjoy the benifits of living in a western democracy which allows them to say and do things that would get them killed in those countries, I don't see they have much to complain about.

You might ask how we would get them there. Until we get C-17's we won't have the capacity to move them by air so they would have to be moved by the Americans or trucked across either Pakistan or Iran. Yeah that's the way it was done in 1944 and in 51....on a freighter and through Pakistan. Or we could lease a russian cargo plane....actually getting them there is the easy part....getting someone to order them there, now that will take work. We could do it if the Russians were willing to put their aircraft at risk by hauling someone elses military equipment into a war zone (I'm not so sure the Russians are that happy we are there in the first place) or if the Pakistanis were agreeable to Canadian tanks being transported accross their territory. I don't know if that is so.

It is hard to say what would have happened if the U.S. had left after the armistice. The domino theory was used about Vietnam. It really didn't play out that way. That's the whole point of deterrence isn't it. If it works, nothing happens. If you fly into Seoul on a clear night the border is obvious. South of the line is a brightly lit country and north of it is a black hole. If there was ever a country that could use nuclear power for electricity generation, North Korea is it, instead they are using their resources for the bomb and delivery systems.

You might ask how we would get them there. Until we get C-17's we won't have the capacity to move them by air so they would have to be moved by the Americans or trucked across either Pakistan or Iran.

They were right, it has been a long occupation but someone had to do it or the North would have tried again. The American presence has provided the same result as their presence in Western Europe during the Cold War. Peace in the region.

They were based in Italy I believe.

And as anyone will tell you, there's no drug problem in Thailand. I would bet it's far, far less than we have here. My grandson was approached in a schoolyard last year. Anyone who would try to sell drugs to a seven year old should be put up against a wall and shot.

Fantastic piece of equipment. However, air power cannot win a war. It's been tried, and it cannot be done. Never said it could but it can be a lot more difficult and maybe impossible to win without it, just pointing out why we have to rely on someone else.

It is not the point but it is a very valid point. Also the more lethal your equipment the more deadly the the incidents. Could the situation be improved? Probably, it almost always can but fratricide in war will always be a reality. As far as the Brits go, I don't know. Do you? Remember, the US is trying to supply air support for our troops because we let our military reach a state where we are incapable of doing it ourselves. I guess we will just have to wait and see what contributed to this latest tragedy. No and neither am I trying to demonize the Americans. But in the past, their procedures has been suspect, particularly in the length of a sortie and the drugs they use to stay awake. That being said, we could provide our own air support with our CF-18s but the Harper gov't, for whatever reason has not authorized it. No we can't. Yes the F-18 can be a very capable all round aircraft. The US Navy has used different versions of it to replace both the A6 Intruder and F-14 Tomcat. The problem is not so much the aircraft but the military's inability to support an air unit in Afghanistan. They informed the previous government that this was the case and I assume nothing has changed.

The Thais have got it right. Hang the dealers.

It is not the point but it is a very valid point. Also the more lethal your equipment the more deadly the the incidents. Could the situation be improved? Probably, it almost always can but fratricide in war will always be a reality. As far as the Brits go, I don't know. Do you? Remember, the US is trying to supply air support for our troops because we let our military reach a state where we are incapable of doing it ourselves. I guess we will just have to wait and see what contributed to this latest tragedy.

"if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel." "they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment." Hassan Hasrallah I think you missed my point. I don't deny that the rhetoric exists, I merely suggest that the conclusions the Bush-Likud propagandists urge be drawn from it are a trap. It is a trap because their response to that rhetoric is the wrong one, as I believe I addressed somewhat above. Like I said, there are people in this world who say anything they want and there are always those who will apologize for them and say they didn't really mean it. I alone am responsible for what I say and any consequences it may bring. If I threaten someone with violence and punch him in the mouth, I expect him to retaliate. I have no control over the severity of that retaliation nor do I have the right to expect any. If you had people armed to the teeth a few miles from where you live saying the same things and occasionally acting on those words, you might take them a little differently.

Not really. Those who never do anything never make mistakes. FTA has the gist of it. On the otherhand, is there something about their training or SOP that contributes to the incidents? Given that it is not just allies who are the victims of fratrcide, but many more US casualties, it may be a valid criticism. If you have the largest military and are involved in more wars, it is only logical that you will be involved in more incidents. Those who never go to war will never have any incidents. We have no capability to provide air support for our army in Afghanistan, therefore we will never be guilty of bombing our own side.