carepov

I don't know, I suppose that some businesses would restrict and some would not. Is Shaw Open Wi-fi restricted? I'm sure this happens at the library or universities already. Isn't it like restricting alcohol/cig sales to minors? How many 18-30 year olds forget their ID and get refused their purchase? Should we then allow liquor sales to children because it's the parent's job to parent? It's same with spray paint (in order to reduce graffiti).

OK, some individual men benefit from misogynistic laws. All women suffer from these laws. All children suffer. All of society suffers. Most men suffer.

How many Afghani civilians would have died without western involvement? (hint: look at the historical record of Taleban rule) How many would have died in Iraq under Hussein? (hint: look at the Kurds...) How many would have died if for example the Arab Spring occurred under Hussein? (hint: look at the current war in Syria or past wars in Lebanon for possible outcomes) How many Israelis would die if Hamas was allowed to obtain "greater" capabilities? The fact that the West has the overwhelming power to kill at it's own discretion but restrains this power is the key difference between the West and terrorist groups - this makes us more moral. Our treatment of women, minorities and our greater respect for religious freedoms and other human rights are the key points that make us more civilized. I agree however that the West should exercise its power more prudently and humanely and should also respect International Laws.

A lot of people relative to what? The main reason that I am talking about post-Cold War is that it ended 24 years ago, yes some things never change but in general there are new Western leaders and the world has greatly changed since. I was not implying that the Cold War justified East Timor. The situation was deplorable and inexcusable. Also, a great deal of American involvement in Central/South America in the 80's was inexcusable state terrorism. The principle difference between Western powers and terrorist groups like Hamas is that Hamas's capabilities are limited and that is why the death toll and terrorism is limited. My impression (which could be wrong) is that you are overly critical of the West and forgetting that, chances are, the alternatives to Western powers would include far more violations of human rights. Of course we would hear a lot of nonsense from some posters. But no, the world has changed and if we had colluded in any genocide since the Cold War it would not be ignored like East Timor.

No, there is no single solution. And no, Black Dog and I are not suggesting increased government funding - just smarter funding, following the principle: an ounce of prevention... In general: -Save money on enforcing marijuana prohibition laws -Spend money on social programs for inner city kids Specifically: -Invest money is creating a "drug court" where drug-related crimes are tried separately and sentences are served in the community -This type of program has been implemented in parts of Texas and for every $1 spent on addicts, $10 are saved in the penal system and recidivism rates are significantly lower

OK, I am somewhat convinced that that the current home internet service is not a problem, and the status quo should be OK where parents can block. What about public Wi-fi? Can anyone sit outside a McDonald's with a tablet and view anything or should there be restrictions public Wi-fi?

Well the commitment to rebuild Afghanistan was made in 2002, and should therefore be considered a goal as well. The 11+ year long war has likely increased terrorism, but had it been done right, it would not have. In the long term, reducing terrorism and rebuilding Afghan society become one and the same goal.

Isn't Operation Desert Storm heralded as a U.S. Success?

Also, if I understand you correctly, this comment also supports one of the main reasons for favoring Israel over the Arabs/Palestinians. Israel is more moral than the Arab/Pallestinian powers. They have a much greater respect for human rights and are much more restrained with their power. Yes they could and should do better, but here in the real world, what regional power would have shown so much restraint?

Generally agreed. And yes, it's the numbers that matter - and this supports my point. In the present times, let's say post-cold war, how many deaths have been caused by Western terrorist-type crimes? The numbers are very low and even lower if you take them as a percentage of the world's population. By no means are we innocent but we are the most innocent of any superpower in all of history. Well we do it already like you said with Natives, and we still don't get it. We should do it better with WW2 - Dresden, firebombing of Tokyo, two atomic bombs... We learn about the Holocaust and should all know about the failure to act in Rwanda and more modern human rights violations. But it is important to also look at all the progress that's been made. Regretably for the East Timorese, their suffering will be ignored by most of the world like most other similar massacres.

And it always will be. These proposals do nothing to change that. If it is correct to restrict pornography on TV and in stores then it is a good idea in principle to restrict it on the internet. This statement can go both ways, how about implement the changes and move on to other problems? So you have to call your ISP to "opt-in", what's the problem? Yes, you can block at home. OK, how about public Wi-fi, perhaps I am wrong but there is no way to stop someone from using a tablet to view porn? How about on kid in a group that has easy access and sharing downloaded porn with peers? How about downloading "cracks" and bypasses for the content filters? I am not hung-up on boobies. If anything, perhaps we should give easier access of erotica/boobies to teenagers. It is 9-17 year olds viewing people getting ganged up on, humiliated, tortured and abused. Don't you see this as a problem? I also think that excessive violence and advertizing to kids is a problem.

It depends, exculpable to what crimes? In general, no. I disagree with the claim that the "foreign policy intelligentsia" holds high esteem for Western foreign policy. I try to be realistic as opposed to idealistic. I also try to be relativistic as opposed to absolute. Many Western policies are wrong, some are immoral - but overall the Western powers are the most restrained that the world has ever seen. Most people have no clue and worse yet have no care about Indonesia, East Timor, etc... This cause is hopeless.

Good example about East Timor. Do you have any examples of Western countries committing or "deeply and consciously involved in" terrorism, let's say in the last 20 years or so?

Yes, there is a slippery slope to government regulation/censorship limiting free speech, etc... and as a guideline it should be avoided, but this does not mean we should not do it at all. For example, are you in favour of: - the ban on cigarette advertizing, or even having the product visible in stores? - rules against false claims on packaging or false advertizing? - the ban on easily accessible pornography on TV, libraries, newsstands? Regarding children, the state does not need to become parents - but it should help parents! Children should not have access to: - tobacco - alcohol - hard-core pornography - gambling - extreme graphic violence and should have limited/restricted access to: - weapons like knives, sling shots, bb guns - spray paint - mild violence and pornography - too much advertizing In principle, I am in favour of this move. Will it be perfect? No, similar to the current restrictions. But it will be an improvement. Parents cannot be expected to monitor kids 24/7 and need help from the state – for example, without this measure, how would you restrict access to pornography over public Wi-fi?

Thanks for the links, I fully agree. The most potent quote was from MLK: ""Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We've got to face that. And we've got to do something about our moral standards," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. "We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can't keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves."" If this was even partially true in 1961, then it must be true in 2013. IMO, racism / black oppression is no longer a major cause of high back poverty and crime rates. A good start would be to transfer resources form the war on drugs to social programs for poor people, especially children.

Wow. I very much admire your passion Rue, and thank you for no longer pre-judging my opinions within your posts. I 100% agree that there is not enough criticism of Palestinian and Arab leadership, and much of the disproportionate criticism has and is coming from EU countries. And, yes France does look like the worst offender. The international community must insist that Palestinians/Arabs recognize Israel, and at least make an effort to stop terrorism and anti-Semitism. To save us all time, perhaps you could stop repeating points related to the above, this will cut down your word count by about 75%. Did you agree with the Israeli decision of withdrawing from Gaza? Do you think that it is in Israel's best interest to continue to expand West Bank settlements?

I agree that the mission lacked coherent goals and therefore it is difficult to define what could have been successful. I also agree that the reasons for the mission had nothing to do with protecting human rights. But it is always good to promote and protect human rights, there were great gains made and I can't help wondering how many more gains could have been made. You are right about costs - the amount spent in blood and treasure was not worth it. However in my "what if" scenario, the costs would have been substantially lower. Imagine if the 2009 troop surge took place in 2002 instead. My point is that what has been accomplished in the 11 years could have been in 3-5 years reducing the costs of the war down 50-70%. These costs would also be more evenly split amongst NATO members. Would you have considered the war a success in this situation?

I'm curious, what makes you say that about Turkey? Regarding Malaysia, typically no news is good news, no?

Thank you that was a good read. He does not sound anxious. He does verify that the EU directives are new and have some significance.

Absolutely agree that it was a mistake. I'm not so sure about the reasons but that's another discussion. I will also add that the US also ruined much of their goodwill with most allies and this certainly did not help the Afghan war. I wonder, what if Kerry won in 2000, 9/11 still happened and the US invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq and fought the war intelligently. How would it have turned out? Do you think they would have been successful in this scenario?

I agree that nobody deserves statues, but the results are an indication of at least some very good work by all levels of government - especially considering the Great Recession. I love how the Gazette writer criticises Coyne for cherry picking data and then goes on to do it himself... I wish that these reporters would just post the graph:

IMO, the mistake was invading Iraq in 2003 instead of concentrating military resources and international political goodwill on the war in Afghanistan. The US had the world on it's side and the war could have been successful - similar to Operation Desert Storm. You give good examples of the failures of war. There are however some good examples of successful Western military operations, like Sierra Leone in 1999. Also there are examples where non-intervention led to disaster: Rwanda.

Rue, The link that you provided has proven what I've been saying all along, the EU policy is NEW. (emphasis mine) "A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the new ruling, which was published on June 30, as an « earthquake. » « This is the first time such an official, explicit directive has been published by the European Union bodies, » the senior official said. « Until today there were understandings and quiet agreements that the Union does not work beyond the Green Line [the pre-1967-war border]; now this has become a formal, binding policy. » The official noted that the significance of the regulation is both practical and political: From now on, if the Israeli government wants to sign agreements with the European Union or one of its member states, it will have to recognize in writing that the West Bank settlements are not part of Israel. In the Prime Minister’s Office and Foreign Ministry there is great tension and anxiety over the new regulation and its implications for Israeli-EU relations. The efforts of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin to stop the move have all failed." How significant is the new policy? I tend to agree with the NYT opinion that the significance has been over-dramatized by both sides, but it is significant. Anyways, if we can't even move past the argument of "Is this policy new?" than I can't imagine discussing more in-depth questions like: "what is the significance of this policy?", or never mind questions such as "is it in Israeli's best long-term interests to continue to expand the West Bank settlements?"

Rue, basically, the only thing that I've said is: -I try to be objective, but if anything I am anti-Arab -The EU policy is new I never enen said that I agreed with the new policy and frankly your assumptions about my knowledge and positions are wrong. Please stop assuming that you know my opinions, I find this insulting.

You are correct, that the "call for boycott" is not new, but you seem to be talking beside me as I never claimed that the call to boycott was new. The actual policy is new, as far as I know this is the first time that the EU has moved from mere words to action. If you can show me an EU action (eg: boycott, sanction, etc...) then I would appreciate knowing that.