Liam

I don't see at all how Chavez is a threat to US interests. Chavez is, at most, an international mosquito: more buzz than sting. By inflating his peskiness to US interests, you make him more important than he is. Yes, he has oil, but oil is a commodity that is (pretty much) globally pooled in the marketplace. For example, if Chavez wants to redirect his country's supply away from the US to China, the oil from Kuwait and Nigeria that would have gone to China comes back into the market for US consumption. The only threat Chavez poses is to Bush's standing -- or do you think Bush's being on the receiving end of inflated and outright silly rhetoric are vital interests we need to defend and depose foreign leaders over? Please, I'd rather we use our military resources and focus our attention on global threats that are real.

I think the Islamic world's obsession with Palestine/Israel only extends so far as they can continuously hold out the Palestinians as the "poor, oppressed Muslim brothers" while keeping Israel as Public Enemy #1. If the Islamic world wanted to help Palestinians, and I mean *really* wanted to help them, there would be excellent schools and hospitals and infrastructure and economic development going on all over Gaza and the West Bank.

I came is at just slightly Libertarian/Left.

This is all hooey. Vermont, like several northern states, has a declining birth rate because its population is aging. It's cheaper to buy a home in Florida than in Michigan, so young couples in their child-bearing years (both liberals and conservatives) are migrating to the sun belt while the more-established, middle aged folks stay up north. It's a stretch to say that because surrently-Red states have higher fertility rates that a next generation of GOP-bots is on the rise. Plenty of the people adding numbers to southern, Red states are northern liberals and moderates.

This is such a minor point I can't believe I am bothering to make it, but "y'all" is not an "American type [thing]". I mean, it isn't said by anyone but Americans, but it is only said by some Americans (i.e., those who live in the southeast corner of the US). You'd be really hard pressed to find anyone west of Texas or north of Kentucky who uses it.

Not entirely true. Wahabbism is the strain of Islam practiced by and endorsed by the House of Saud. They sponsor and pay for Wahabbist schools and mosques all over the world -- not OBL and al-Qaeda. I doubt the Sauds would so openly endorse a version of their faith that identifies themselves as public enemy #1.

It's clear to me that the Bush folks have played up our fears of terrorism for political gain, but that does not mean that there is not a real threat lurking out there. In my opinion, the fact that al-Qaeda hasn't mounted a huge strike on US soil since 9/11 has more to do with their patient and covert planning than any insinuation that the threat is not real. I don't at all endorse the Bush tactics in fighting this war (invading Iraq, breaking Geneva, secret prisons, lack of due process, infringement on civil liberties, warrantless wiretapping, you name it) but I personally would prefer to believe that the threat is real and be wrong than think there is no threat and be proven wrong.

Sounds like a pretty good description of the Bush administration and its wealthy corporate supporters.

I had to say that he is the worst president of all those listed. Roosevelt = one of the top 3 or 4 presidents in our history; Eisenhower = brilliant; Kennedy = both a great communicator and a great visionary; Johnson = a tough SOB (and a bit crude) but he enacted major pieces of legislation which aimed at fixing a lot of societal ills, particularly racism; Nixon = morally bankrupt, but his China policy and detente policy with the Soviets were master strokes; Ford = the wrong man at the wrong time, but he was honorable; Carter = also the wrong man at the wrong time but he was right on many issues (linking foreign policy to human rights, not negotiating with terrorists), and he was a lot more conservative than people give him credit for; Reagan = a great communicator who could inspire people to greatness with a few sentences; Bush I = a war hero and the last of the old-school Republicans who was more a fiscal conservative than a social engineer, and he was good at foreign policy; Clinton = one of the smartest and savviest presidents, but with plenty of personal moral failings; W = disastrous at foreign policy, intellectually incurious, as poll-driven as any other politician, politicizes national tragedies...

I don't fault The Star for not expressing outrage in this piece. There's a difference between news reporting and editorializing and I think The Star did well enough at reporting the story. I'd be greatly disappointed if they didn't criticize the proposal on their editorial pages, much as they would -- as someone said -- if the Vatican decided to ban women on a similarly flimsy rationale. (Frankly, I'd rather have news organizations report the news, devoid of right-wing or left-wing spin and leave it to me to develop my own opinions/outrage.) You can't help but read this and think that there is sexism at work here. Why women only? Why not control the crowds by instituting an odd-even visiting system (based on year of birth) or similar crowd-controlling measure?

I don't think it is possible to say "%$#@ OFF" to Republican neo-fascists more clearly. I mean, I understand lying and creating false realities is how one gets by as a Republican these days, but it's really shameful when you people betray your core beliefs all in the name of scoring political debating points. Back in the GHW Bush days you folks at least had some honor. Now you are all just so shameless.

By survivors and witnesses, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean just those individuals who were within the blast zone but who survived. In the day of televised history, we are all either survivors or witnesses to an attack. I should have been more clear. About WW2, the western allies (US, Canada, Britain, Australia, France) would have had an enormous disadvantage had Hitler not invaded the USSR and the USSR can largely take credit for defeating Germany, but I'd hardly describe the retaking of North Africa, the invasion and defeat of Italy, the invasion of Normandy, the atoll hopping in the Pacific, and the defeat of Japan as being the acts of mere bit players.

The greater power of terrorism is not in the destruction within the "blast zone," but the lingering impact it has on the survivors and witnesses. Part of that impact is how the survivors react, how they cope afterward, how they change their behavior. I think it would be against the nature of most people to simply shrug off a major terror attack and just go back to work or the mall or ride on a subway right away. And I also think it would be against human nature to not want to take steps to prevent similar (or evolving) future attacks, so news laws get drafted... and people even start having discussions about which freedoms can we sacrifice for 10% more security. So, I disagree that it is not ever likely to pose a threat to our survival or way of life. Terror and its effects have very real impacts on our ability to survive and on our way of life. True, WW1 was a battle between two groups of dying monarchial states and not really one of competing ideologies. Regarding WW2, I disagree that it was essentially a clash of totalitarian ideologies. Really?? I never knew that in opposing fascism, Britain, Canada, and the US were either defending their own particular totalitarian ideology or mere bit players. The Soviets, yes, but I think several thousand veterans and thousands of historians would disagree that the North Atlantic allies fighting the Nazis were doing so to defend their brand of totalitarianism or that we were mere bit players in a larger global struggle. Regarding the rest, you seem to be clinging to a definition of war (world war) that relies solely on armaments, field of battle, nation v. nation, army v. army, tanks, guns, ammo, bombers and war rooms with huge maps. War evolves. WW1 was 100% turf battle. WW2 was 70% turf battle, 30% ideological struggle. The Cold War was 70% ideological chess, 30% satellite skirmishes (Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.). The latest war is (so far) more along the lines of 90% ideology, 10% traditional field war. I am not at all a fan of war and oppose almost everything Bush has done, but I do agree that we *are* in the midst of an enormous global battle which I consider a world war. It's not one that will be won on a battlefield, though. It is something that will require an enormous rethinking of how the west and Islamic world interact and the winning side will be the one that presents the ideology that appeals to the vast majority of people. Regretably, I think it is a war that Bush is ill-equipped to wage on our behalf.

Masshole: thanks for the info. I never knew of the CSA standard, so thanks for enlightening me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Statistical_Area As a Bostonian (a fellow masshole), I always thought it unfair that metro Boston was deemed smaller than it really is (by not including Worcester, Lowell, Manchester, etc.) by the Census Bureau -- particularly when I've seen certain Census Bureau reports include all of southern NJ -- including Atlantic City!! -- as part of metro Philadelphia.

I think the Democrats' greatest weakness with the general electorate is that the party doesn't seem to stand for anything and, as a result, the public doesn't trust them. During the 2004 election, countless number of polls showed that the public disagreed with Bush on most issues (similar to how they felt about Reagan), but they voted for him anyhow because they "[knew] what he stands for." I think Hillary fits into the Democrats' unfortunate history of selecting candidates who seem more interested in furthering their careers than in fighting ideological battles (e.g., Dukakis, Gore, Kerry). Personally, I don't think Hillary is going to run in 2008. From what I've read, both Clintons are the type who don't run a race they can't win and I simply think her "negatives" are too high among too many voters. Hillary is a brilliant woman and someone I admire for her intellect, but I think she is too polarizing and will only serve to galvanize support behind whoever her opponent would be if she ran. And I don't think she is able to offer anything to neutralize those negatives. If she was able to show voters she was passionate about issues she might have a shot, but I think Hillary is viewed more as an opportunist than as someone who wants to be president because she truly believes she can lead the country in the right direction. I do not agree with Finegold on some issues, but I think it would be healthier for the Democrats to run an ideologue who might lose than picking someone who can be so easily cast as an opportunist. My personal favorite is Mark Warner, the former governor of Virginia.

In the wake of 9/11, I saw the west's (the US's, in particular) dependence on oil as a national security issue. Heck, during the first Gulf War when Saddam rolled over Kuwait it was obvious that the west was overly-dependent on that region of the world. Unfortunately, no one (politicians, business leaders, but mostly consumers) heeded the call. We absolutely MUST not only ween ourselves off Middle Eastern oil, but all oil. Nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal are our best bets for future security. The good thing is that as two huge countries, China and India, begin to consume more oil, it makes alternative fuels an easier "sell" in the west. Additionally, both countries provide enormous testing grounds for alternative energy sources which can spur more R&D spending and, eventually, reduced costs for more efficient systems for everyone.

You are changing the definitions of words - If we use your definitions then the Cold War was WWIII and whatever we have going on right now is WWIV. I never claimed to be the Director of New Definitions at Merriam Webster, I simply opined from the start what I believe. So, yes, I am stressing my own definition and my own opinion, but I am not forcing them on anyone. I should have continued my last post with the following (but I stopped short): "I believe the Cold War was another "world war", and considerably less bloody than its predecessor." Personally, I believe there have been many world wars in our history, some major (WW1, WW2), some broad in the theatre of war but with fewer casualties than the biggest two world wars (e.g., The Seven Year War/French and Indian War), some broad in theatre with an almost negligible number of casualties (e.g., Spanish-American War).

If you take nuclear weapons out of the picture, I can't see how you can say catastrophic damage to Canada/The US is a risk from this. WWII cost 50 million lives and laid much of Europe and Japan to waste. Let's not overstate what's happening today. I did not say nuclear weapons will not be used by either side. (Though I find it entirely possible that it could happen.) My mentioning of nuclear weapons was in response to the poster who said that calling the current struggle a "world war" connoted the *justified use* of such weapons. I did not say they would be used, I did not say they wouldn't be used in the current struggle. That said, the US and Canada could face catastrophic damage in the form of nuclear, biological or chemical agents, computer hacking, attacks on the power grid, business centers, hospitals and chemical facilities, economic damage, plane hijackings, etc. How many billions of dollars were lost after 9/11? Now imagine how many hundreds of billions of dollars would evaporate if a few suicide bombers hit Eaton Centre, Mall of America, South Coast Plaza, or the West Edmonton Mall all on the same day. Do you think moms with strollers are ever going to go to the mall again? The consumer-oriented economies of the US and Canada would crash. I do not think a war has to tally up a certain body count for it to be designated a world war. I see a world war more as a struggle between two incompatible and dominant belief systems (fascism v liberal democracy, for example), and within that struggle are armed conflicts that take place on a global basis (as opposed to national, regional or continental bases).

As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing about the phrase "world war" which connotes the justified use of nuclear weapons. In my mind, a world war is a global struggle. With bombings in Bali, London, Madrid, 9/11, countless smaller attacks across the Middle East, Africa and South/Southeast Asia, we are definitely experiencing a global battlefield. Is our very existence at stake? Well, the US and Canada fought in WW2, yet their very existences were not at risk. I'd say that in the current war, the US and Canada are in much greater danger of catastrophic damage than between 1939 and 1945.

I am the anti-thesis of a neo-con, yet I think we are in the middle of a new kind of war and am willing to call it WWIII. Unlike WWI and WWII, however, this war will not entail massive troop and artillery movements by one nation or another in large fields of battle. And unlike those earlier world wars, there will remain a significant number of people on both sides of the battle line who will remain in denial that a war is being fought. This war is largely invisible, but it is a war, nonetheless. This is a global ideological war, a war of values and, yes, a war of civilizations. The sides are not evenly matched in terms of numbers or armaments, but the enemies of westernism and secularism do not need tanks or missiles or huge armies. All they need are the next generation of young nihilists and $100 worth of explosives. We cannot win this battle on the battlefield, we can only win it by winning hearts and minds. Just because this war does not bear the insignias of earlier struggles does not make it less of a war.

You helped in Afghanistan for two reasons: 1) NATO nations pitched in to help fight (when one is attacked, the alliance responds as though all were attacked); and, 2) it was a moral decision to help your neighbor and take down a renegade government that proved itself to be a lethal threat against the civilized world. You got nothing because NATO allies don't treat each other's militaries as groups of mercenaries. I didn't realize Canada's (or Britain's) expectation is that its military operates as a revenue generator.

What you're stating is a point of your religious belief. I am a firm believer that evolution is scientifically factual, but I also believe that *something* (God?) has triggered the evolutionary process. The problem is that I.D. supporters seek to replace evolution with I.D. in the classroom. Evolutionary theory and science answer the question "What?" whereas I.D. and religion answer the question "Why?" The two are not the same. One is science, the other is religion.

While I agree that anyone who supports Hamas, et. al. needs to wake up, I disagree that we as a society need to be as ruthless as the terrorists. We need to be smarter and craftier than the terrorists, and we need to be ruthless when one is convicted of terrorism, but by becoming savages we reduce ourselves to their level. You commit a terrible mistake by saying that we are placing greater emphasis on the "rights of criminals [and terrorists]." Maybe the Canadian judicial system does that (though I doubt it does), but I can tell you as an attorney that the US system gives *the accused* certain civil rights. People in the US are presumed innocent till proven guilty and I assume it's the same in Canada. Should we suspend the rights of the innocent merely because they have been accused? how about because they are suspects? While it is terrifying that these people live among us and wish us harm, we cannot lose sight of the fact that innocent people may be caught up in some of the criminal sweeps that intend to stop these savages. Would our society, would our way of life, would our "freedom" (what Bush so often says they hate most about us) really be worth saving if we, too, became savages? Heck, if we gave up due process of law, would we even have freedom?? Immediate execution was (and in some cases is still) practiced in the Soviet Union, in Maoist China, in Iran, in North Korea. I do not think the US and Canada and Britain should model its judicial systems on those states'. The western appeals system protects the innocent from wrongful conviction and protects the non-accused in that it forces government to exercise restraint in its investigation and prosecution of criminal matters. Eliminating the appeals process, even for the most evil of criminals, puts all of us in a state of permanent legal jeopardy. We would all be one accusation away from the guillotine. How would we be safer if we had no civil rights? Don't misunderstand me, I am fully in favor of waging the war against terrorist and stopping them. I am fully in favor of using every legal means available to the government in the pursuit of these people. I am 100% in favor of trying them and 100% in favor of executing the guilty, but only in accordance with the judicial restraint of a civilized, law-based society. Ruthlessness and savagery in punishment of the guilty is one thing, but ruthlessness and savagery in pursuit of suspects is not a winning strategy for us and only serves to throw in the trash bin the one thing our leaders tell us the terrorists hate about us, freedom.

No. The media is all over Gibson because he's a racist who has lashed out at Jews before. I am Catholic and feel no persecution, but would expect to if I was a loose-lipped bigot like Gibson. And I don't buy his apologies. In vino veritas.

I accidentally posted this to the wrong thread this morning: <<Lieberman's problem is going to be financial, not getting votes. Running a senatorial campaign, particularly in any state whose population abuts a major media market (something like 30% of CT voters live near or in the Greater NYC media market), is extremely expensive. With the Democrats closing rank behind Lamont, putting the national party machine behind him, lining up the labor votes, using the fundraising power of the national organization, etc. presents an enormous burden on Lieberman. There will be a lot of spending and campaigning on Lamont's behalf and without the party structure behind him, Lieberman will be hard pressed to wage a strong battle. The GOP knows this and are doing what they can to prop up Lieberman. I cite as examples Rove's overtures to Lieberman, GOP chairman Ken Mehlman's tacit endorsement of Lieberman and his refusal to openly support the GOP nominee in the race. Mehlman was on TV last night practically asking Republicans to donate to Lieberman's campaign. The GOP wants to keep Liberman as viable as possible because it creates the image of a civil war within the Democrats over defense/Iraq/war on terror issues. The GOP has no hope of winning the CT seat, but they want to use any perceived internal strife among the Democrats as a national talking point hoping it can help them pick up some desperately needed polling percentages in other races they ought to be winning easily (i.e., the Tennessee, Missouri, and Ohio senate races). The telling moment for Liebeman will be mid-September when the first real polls come out. If Lieberman's number show weakness at that time, I would be surprised if he didn't withdraw.>>