Hugo

Do you have any proof, apart from your "reality shows" that you claim to watch? It's impossible to prove any education level with definitive numbers anyway. That's why your point is so indefensible. IQ is unrelated to culture or to formal education, which is itself very varied in quality. On this very forum there are some who claim to have a univerisity degree or to be working towards one and yet cannot write a coherent paragraph in passable English. I expect that your derision for American geographical knowledge comes from Canadian "comedy" such as the execrable "This Hour has 22 Minutes", where Rick Mercer asks probably 100 Americans what their state capital is and when 2 don't know, he shows them alone on TV as an illustration of American stupidity. Or where he says to then-presidential candidate George W Bush, "Canadian Prime Minister [mumbling]Jean Poutine[stop mumbling] says you are the man to lead the free world. Is this endorsement important?" while 200 cameras are clicking in his face and as many reporters shouting questions at him, and then laughs because he failed to spot the mumbled error. Real funny Rick, why don't you try working for a living rather than making crap comedy at taxpayer expense?

Ned, I agree, a lot of this is the worst kind of baloney. I think "clowns" is too kind. For instance, when I just finished giving a list of 47 other nations who are willing to risk terrorist attack and, in many cases, the lives of their troops, to support America. Britain has. How do you think they got to the Falklands anyway - by bus? Nobody's military is on par with America's. The next largest military spender is Russia, humiliated in Chechnya by a rag-tag bunch of separatists. The same kind of organisation in Afghanistan posed nothing more than a turkey shoot for the US military. The Japanese military is constitutionally bound to self-defence and has no power projection capability. China fears Rupert Murdoch and families with more than one child. Just because the Chinese government fears something doesn't mean it's fearsome, they are paranoid.

Oh, grow up. Shouting "racist" at everyone who disagrees with you isn't going to prove your point. The fact of the matter is that AA itself is racist. It subscribes to the idea that people of different skin colour are so different in nature and ability as to need special treatment. To argue that AA is needed to counterbalance supposed institutional racism is basically arguing that two wrongs make a right. Since we have institutional racism, we'd better have institutional reverse-racism as some kind of counterweight. Surely the only real solution would be to try to build a society where people are valued for merit and ability, and prized as individuals, rather than lumped into any kind of ethnic category and pre-judged for better or worse?

Fleabag, I'd ask that you refrain from posting anymore on Iraq since in this thread and others you have proven yourself so woefully ignorant of the facts. Saddam Hussein pledged a huge cash sum to the family of any suicide bomber who died killing Israeli civilians. The recent attack on the UN was clearly not the work of inexperienced amateurs. To state in the light of these things alone that "Iraq is not yet proven to be a provider of anything but rhetoric to 'terrorists'" is therefore a mere affirmation of your ignorance and nothing more. Any examples, or are you posting out of complete ignorance yet again? Wrong yet again. Three strikes, Fleabag. The Salat (Muslim prayer) goes as follows: Allahu Akbar. (God is most great) Bismil laahir rahmaanir raheem. Al hamdu lillahi rabbil 'aalameen, ar rahmaanir raheem, maaliki yawmid deen. Eyyaaka na'budu, wa eyyaaka nasta'een. Eh'denas siraatal mustaqeem. Siraatal lazina an'amta 'alayhim; ghayril maghdoobi 'alayim waladdaaleen. (This is called the 'key' and is translated as, In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful. Praise be to God, Lord of all creation, most gracious, most merciful, master of the Day of Judgement. You alone we worship and ask for help. Guide us in the right path, the path of those whom You have blessed, not of those who have deserved Your wrath, nor of the strayers). Allahu Akbar. Subhaana Rabbiyal Azeem. (God is most great. Glory be to God.) Sami'Allahu liman hamidah. (God responds to those who praise Him.) Allahu Akbar. Subhaana Rabbiyal a'laa. (God is most great. Glory be to God.) This is the Dawn prayer. The other 4 prayers vary only in minor details. There is some repetition which I have left out for brevity. "Mujahedeen" simply means "Holy Warriors". There are many groups calling themselves Mujahedeen. Which ones are you talking about? Or don't you know?

There were "only" 30 nations at the time of invasion - far more than fought Hitler. 18 more have since joined. It must be you who is mistaken, but that should come as no surprise.

Just letting things alone was what let the Great Depression go on so long. Do you not think it highly irresponsible that the Liberal party built up a mountain of debt from nothing and then just expects someone else to deal with it? I think people have to pay their debts. Just putting it down to "economics" is unacceptable. It amounts to fiscal irresponsibility and we cannot leave a mountain of debt that will take three times as long to repay as the nation of Canada is old. It's in decline. Canada's position in the world is slipping: real incomes, life expectancy, crime rates etc. If you continue to stick your head in the sand and pretend that since things are OK now they always will be, don't be surprised when you wake up one morning and find that the Canadian standard of living resembles the Nicaraguan. It's on the way down, Riff. Not true. Life expectancy is roughly comparable but certainly less than Japan, and violent crime per capita in Canada is higher than in the US. My wife's grandmother is 75 and extremely diabetic. She has not had a family doctor for 5 years, nobody will take her on. She isn't getting the care she needs because all she can do is go to the ER or walk-in clinic and has no on-going care whatsoever, and does not have long to live, so now you have heard of somebody dying because there are no doctors. Satisfied? The brain drain is a reality, my friend, and it costs us dearly. As long as Canada continues to offer less, the best and the brightest will go elsewhere, leaving Canada as a nation of mediocrities with no innovation or prospects. Hey, hang on a minute... Really? So how come Japan doesn't have one? It's their fault the healthcare system is screwed up though. They are in power. Within a mere 40 years, income taxes will have to double to cover increases in pension plans alone. Is that advancing society? Well, how about doing ANYTHING? All you've said is that you admit that these are all problems, but that we should just not worry about them. Unacceptable. You can't just watch the country go down the toilet (and by your inability to deny any of my points you must concede that it is) and say, well, what are you gonna do? If a government does that, they need to be dissolved immediately. That is not government for the people.

No, I didn't, and I'd be careful what libel you spread around in a monitored public forum.

Oh yeah... and a skyrocketing crime rate combined with the lowest RCMP and uniformed police funding levels in the last three decades. Violent crime is (per capita) at a higher level in Canada than the US. Yet the Liberals believe that the answers lie in gun registries and biometric ID cards. Regarding social issues and government - I don't think the government can dictate morals but it can certainly influence them. I don't think it's coincidence that the traditional hard-working Canadian attitudes became replaced with the morality of laziness, hedonism and selfishness during Trudeau's reign. The government could very well produce social change with a few things. If it told the truth about abortion and about homosexual health risks and so on, a lot of people would probably be swayed. Not many people know that the life expectancy of a gay man is 42, and not many people know that most aborted foetuses can feel pain and yet the common methods involve dismemberment by twisting off limbs with forceps or being dissolved (literally burnt alive) in saline solution, without anesthaesia. I don't believe that the majority of Canadians are so morally bankrupt that they'd accept these facts as right and just if they were told widely.

Okay. Let's see this justified. Riff, Lost, you are always big on the proclamations but scanty on the proof. Let's see some evidence that you've thought this through at all. Why will Canada continue to be great? What economic and social policies does it have in place to assure continued prosperity? Bearing in mind that: a) the national debt is absolutely enormous (2nd largest in the world) and will take centuries to pay off taxes damage an economy and Canada taxes individuals and businesses very heavily c) the ineptitude in the Canadian economy drives most of the talent south of the border (doctors, entrepreneurs, investors) d) the trade deficit is very large and grows larger e) the health care system has massive problems and the government has no plans to fix it (either privatisation, or mixed methods such as the British p3 scheme). f) the welfare system is completely broken, and many people live off it while others wait 6 weeks for an unemployment cheque g) the birth rate has dropped to 1.52 children per woman. Immigration is now the only method of Canadian population growth. What this means is massive tax increases to pay for increasing pension and healthcare costs for the aged as the ratio of pensioners to workers multiplies. h) in social matters, teen pregnancies are up massively, and divorce rates are skyrocketing. i) the drop in wages as high-earning manufacturing and trades jobs are replaced with low-paid service jobs, combined with increasing taxes. j) the increasing taxpayer-borne costs of education, its increasingly poor results, and the increasing worthlessness of educational credentials. And so on. But what are your answers to these problems and why do you believe that the government will enact them anytime soon?

Yes, for 12 years, at great expense without any tangible result. Great "solution", I must say. Why fix a problem when you can hold a committee instead? The Coalition of the Willing numbers 48 nations now. Included are: Afghanistan *Albania Angola *Australia Azerbaijan *Bulgaria Colombia Costa Rica *Czech Republic *Denmark Dominican Republic El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Georgia Honduras Hungary Iceland Italy Kuwait Japan South Korea Latvia Lithuania Macedonia *Marshall Islands Micronesia Mongolia *Netherlands Nicaragua *Palau Philippines *Poland *Portugal *Romania Rwanda Singapore *Slovakia *Spain Solomon Islands Tonga Turkey Uganda *Ukraine *United Kingdom Uzbekistan *USA Those nations marked with asterisks have troops on active duty in Iraq. Way to research your post.

You think Mullah Omar fought against his own personality cult? What about Ayatollah Khomeini? Those countries have just as much idol worship, but Tom Hanks and Michael Jordan are not telling people to take up arms and fight the infidel for heaven awaits those who die in battle for Allah. Quite the opposite, in fact.

And AA will continue to assure that it is so. It creates a culture where ethnic differences are emphasised and where different treatment based on skin colour is lauded. It generates an atmosphere where it's assumed that ethnic minorities need a helping hand because they just aren't as able as whites. AA is racist and it perpetuates racism. That's all there is to it.

Yes, and it took place to win back the Holy Land from the Arab conquests of Mohammed. Then why is it referred to as the "theory of evolution"? It's a fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun, so why isn't that called the Theory of Solarcentricity? I mean, the scientific community does not have all the answers and can't prove evolution, but lucky for us Black Dog, a layman, can! When's your Nobel award ceremony?

Not all nations are created equal. You can trust a democratically elected government not to start lobbing nukes without severe provocation. The same can't be said of totalitarian regimes. For instance, it's well known that the Soviet Union considered nuclear exchange to be a logical progression of war and spent billions in civil defence. They planned to fight and win a nuclear war. Your point is akin to saying, let's give everyone a gun, or nobody at all, i.e. stupid. If you give everyone a gun, guaranteed some people are going to start killing others. On the other hand, if policemen and soldiers can't have guns, they aren't much use, are they? This is just more leftist clap-trap - all nations are equal, all people are equal, etc. Sorry, but it just isn't so. Some people are stupid, some are smart, some governments are responsible, some are not. Wake up and smell the coffee.

No, American actions. That's what Riff was ignorant of.

Who will pay? Someone else! This is the liberal mindset - everyone wants to go to the party, nobody wants to clean up. Tax and spend, ignore the deficit - some future generation will solve it! Free abortions for all, and when the birth rate drops below the death rate, just open the floodgates to illiterate, non-anglophone, non-francophone immigrants! Make sure everybody gets a worthless university degree, and then when nobody can get decent employment anymore, quickly legalise pot so everybody can get stoned after they get home from their McJob! Gut the military, and hope nobody ever attacks! If they do, bow and scrape to the "moronic bastard" Americans and hope they have shorter memories than you! Keep provincial police and RCMP funding levels at the lowest they've been for thirty years, and then pretend that the US has a much higher crime rate so don't moan about it! Teach pre-teens all about sex in school, and when teen pregnancies rise without precedent, teach MORE pre-teens about sex - it must be the answer! And it goes on. Suffice it to say, this is the kind of thinking you'd expect from children - irresponsibility and immaturity, hedonism and myopia.

The WMD became central because they were the usual subject of the 14 UN resolutions. Gulf II was a failure of the UN, either way you cut it. Either one, you believe the war was unjust, in which case may you curse the UN for having stipulated war against Iraqi 14 times. Or two, you believe the war was just, in which case may you curse the UN for failing to take any action and leaving it up to an independent coalition. Yeah, right, like the Germans had any fight left in them anyway, after Hitler and Goebbels had committed suicide, Goering and Himmler had disappeared, and Doenitz, final commander of the Reich, had surrendered unconditionally after most of Germany had been occupied for months. Speer's last draft order in 1945 ordered 13-year-olds and 60-year-olds into battle, so who exactly were you thinking could resist, and with what, bearing in mind that in 1945 most German regulars didn't have rifles, ammunition or even boots? And Japan didn't resist because the Emperor told them not to. Read some history. You seem to care who starts wars when it's Republicans. Once again, total ignorance of history. Do you know how many billions of American dollars under the Marshall Plan were poured into Europe and Japan after WWII? Do you know that the success of postwar West Germany and Japan rested almost entirely on US support and money? No, of course not, because you don't know what you're talking about... again.

Dnsfurlan, Neal, you are both right. Some more points about AA: 1) To "fix" discrimination by discriminating against someone else does not resolve the problem, it just moves it. 2) To promote the idea that certain ethnicities need special treatment just furthers the wrongful idea that people of other ethnicities are different from and somehow inferior to "the rest of us". Far from moving towards a more egalitarian and colour-blind society, it moves away from it and actually encourages discrimination. 3) It not only insults minorities by implying that they lack the skills to succeed on their own, it actively encourages them to fail by placing the less qualified of them in positions they are unable to fulfill. In that way, it actually furthers ideas of, say, black inferiority by ensuring that more blacks than ever are failing university courses - just looking at the statistics, it would be easy to conclude that blacks are just stupid. To that end, more discrimination will result. If you are conducting job interviews, with universal educational AA you could safely assume that any black applicants were not as smart as the white ones (since the blacks had gotten their degrees through quotas, not skills, and the whites had been good enough to fit into the reduced white-student quota and thus probably exceeded the minimum requirements). On that basis, I can see many companies just dismissing black applicants out of hand. 4) As with any cheating, it raises the question: would you have succeeded anyway, on your own merit? Even if AA does succeed in producing more minority doctors, lawyers and politicians, the question will still be there: would they still have been able to be those things were it not for AA?

Riff, Nobody is talking about removing rights from gays. They already have all the same rights as straights. You first made an analogy with blacks, which is invalid. You then made an analogy with smokers, which is valid. So let's look at that. Smokers still have the right to vote, the right to life and all that, and they still have the right to smoke in private places. But nobody is about to tell the world that smoking is a safe and equal choice. This is the attitude we need to take towards homosexuality. It is dangerous, it shortens your lifespan, and like smoking it is a behaviour that it is possible to avoid. So if people want to do it in private, let them, but only after you have advised them of the risks. Like smokers. A smoker can't really complain if he dies of lung cancer, since every cigarette packet he ever bought told him he probably would. Similarly, a homosexual who was properly informed of the risks of his behaviour can't complain when he dies of AIDS, as he was informed that he probably would. Homosexuality is a health risk. There's no need to outlaw it, but let's at least make sure it's an informed risk that homosexuals take.

Yes, best of luck, Pell. But if you do lose to the Liberals, shake your fist in the air and shout, "You'll live to regret this!"

There are no facts to support what Farrius says. Craig posted a load to support the exact opposite, which he conveniently ignored.

Excuse me, but how can a system that penalises some people because of ethnicity while it promotes others for the same reason not discriminate? The AA system is unfair to the minorities it tries to serve anyway. I read an account from the dean of a university praciticing AA, who reported that many black and hispanic students who didn't make the academic grades were being allowed in anyway. They paid all their tuition fees (usually with loans), studied for 3 years and then failed, because they were not academically capable enough for the course. So, the white students get the degree. The black students get no degree and a student debt. This policy helps ethnic minorities how, exactly, other than relieving them of their money for little to no gain?

Here's one: For gay marriage to be approved places a stamp of approval on the practice of homosexuality from the government, church or whatever other authority you choose to heed. Homosexuality is harmful to health. It's a fact. The average gay man lives to only 41, is 27 times as likely to suffer a serious STD, and has a mere 9% chance of ever seeing retirement age. Lesbians don't have it much better. Until we fully understand why homosexuals are so unhealthy and live such short lives, perhaps it might be prudent to withhold any endorsements? After all, promoting smoking before the health risks became clear caused many avoidable deaths.

Regardless, the WMD are really irrelevant. It was never a key clause for beginning the war. The key clause is that Saddam was in violation of 14 UN resolutions, consistently refused to comply with weapons inspectors and would provide no assurances (counter to his promises) that he was not a continued threat to the rest of the world. That's why the coalition went to war. Sure, maybe other nations are worse, but you can't have a one-size-fits-all solution. Bush and Blair knew that the quickest and most efficient way to deal with Saddam would be to stomp on him, and they did. The same approach won't work with North Korea or even China. As regards the reconstruction, I'm sure that Riff believes that occupying forces left Japan and Germany a few months following the surrenders. Oh no, wait, they didn't! Could it be that they were still there a decade later? Rebuilding a whole nation takes time, Riff. You thought 12 years was too little time for Saddam to prove his innocence, but you believe that 6 months is too long for Bush to rebuild his entire country? Oh, and the Democrats started Vietnam. The Republicans ended it.

Had Bill Clinton actually spent any time and energy pursuing Al-Queda after the USS Cole attack, rather than vetoing pro-life bills on the (probable) orders of his wife or cheating on said wife in the oval office, or trying to stick Bill Gates with some stupid charges (if Microsoft is a monopoly, how come Apple has a larger share of the computer market than Ford does of the car market?), 9/11 might never have happened. President Bush may not have caught Osama bin Laden, but most Al-Queda members are now dead and their bases and facilities are rubble. Any nations thinking of harbouring them can take a look at Afghanistan and Iraq and wonder if backing Osama is worth having their regime obliterated for. After every terrorist attack on US citizens and property Clinton promised retaliation and delivered nothing. The man was a wash-out and a liar, and deserves to be held up beside Nixon as one of only two US Presidents to actually be impeached.