myata

No, for all practical purposes there are only two parties in Canada: the government and the government in waiting. The rest is decoration ( ). E.g. Greens are a party with 10% of popular support but zero representation.

Old as this conflict itself: 1. Find an objective position based on facts and realities rather than ideological affinities and preferences 2. Work out fair principles of lasting settlement based on international law and communicate them to all parties involved 3. Cut all support other than basic humanitarian aid to any party that does not accept the principles, or acts contrary to them zero tolerance and regardless of ideological affinities and preferences We could that eventually, is there anything to lose given how well our friendly biased mediation has been working so far?

What would it take to finally figure out that a working democracy can (and probably should) have more than two (meaningfully represented) parties? How long could one walk with head firmly stuck in a 150 year old hole?

And I'll reserve my judgement till having lived through Canada'Decade. The trick is to have great economy and social progress. Yet there hasn't been a single new social program in this country for decades. Cities are struggling with maintaining infrustructure, forget expanding it. University tuition, public transit, social programs including activity / recreation all going up. Anybody can eat cake while it keeps coming but let's just see when we get there, I'll be the first to cheer. Could it be though that deficit was the result of reduction in taxes (as that smartwitted reduction of GST, one of the more stable sources of revenue right on the brink of the recession), and out of control government spending? Because wasn't it just over a year back when we were in a multi-year surplus?

And now look where this fantastic alternative view of reality is getting us. "Scared", really, with all those A-bombs, C-bombs, armed to the brink of the teeth and occupying the territory? It's ridiculous to the extent of not being funny, as every single aggressor in history have used that funny pretext of "being scared".

No I don't for the simple reason that it's not true. My postings are based on facts and reality - e.g. I never questioned that both sides in this affair have exhibited unacceptable acts of hostility and aggression - while these kind of statement: are nothing but ideological justification of a prejudged conclusion. See, it's not enough to just say things, one should be able to also prove them. Makes all the difference, doesn't it?

We've been there many many times. The folks have "spot" vision i.e they see only those spots of reality that match their preconceived ideological image of how it should have been.

Yes that's exactly it. Canada's prosperity will result mostly in self gratification with little impact on social infrastructure or international standing of the country. So why would anybody (but currency speculators) bother noticing? Especially to the extend of calling it That?

I'd only add that massive foreign assistance to predominantly one side won't ever make it more perceiptive to the notions of peace and fair settlement. Guaranteed.

But of course. Consistency in useless stupidity would be the worst possible outcome.

Can't have too little of a bad thing.

Sure it'd be good to find some extra dough in our pockets, but aren't we just going to spend it all on useless trivial things, such as SUV, cottages, oilsands and the like? And on the other side: university tuition going up, heathcare crisis looming, modern social infrastructure nowhere in sight, green economy, forget it. International standing - who cares. So calling it "Canada's Decade", not so sure. Would anybody even notice?

Yes that much larger nation did a lot that (messing up in other peoples conflict). Not sure if it's a smart habit to pick up though.

We had a discussion some time back in which we came to conclusion that while communism is really bad taking care of the small picture, capitalism isn't great addressing the big one. The ideal system that would address both sides of human equation equally well is still escaping us.

Yes and we here aren't (afraid of that), yet. But getting intimately in bed with a government that is persisting in provocation and aggression may get us there, though. And no, it'd have nothing to do with "standing up for glorious ideals blah" while everything with getting messed up in other people's conflicts for nothing more than ideologies of our governments of the day.

Wow, what a range of opinions! Has anybody considered a truly groundbreaking idea that these relations could also be based on principles (such as peace, respect for human rights, international law, etc, as we like to blare on every corner, whether asked or not)? On a right occasion, of course.

Yeah, we have to show our sovereignty on the international stage... somewhere

I agree. And that's exactly what the status quo is, as of now. Women deciding the issue, etc. So another old question comes right back, what exactly is the problem? Yes something might or might not happen, and it may happen not at all only in the area of abortion and birth control. So should we also consider legislating the case of e.g. asteroid/comet impact? Black hole emission by LHC experiment? Aliens visiting Earth and asking tough moral questions? But in fact one thing is certainly and actually happening in practical reality right now, severe shortage of organ donations. Which again, brings back the old question, should we consider legislating mandatory donations of tissues and organs with the right "reasoning"? Still waiting for that answer... Wait, I thought that only a minute ago you said this: "I'd rather let women decide the issue themselves". No? So if a woman in Africa decides to have an abortion, what would be your "reasoning" to deny it to her? No, I'm afraid you've got it backwards. The liberal position, consistent with Canada's long standing policy meant exactly that, "let women decide the issue themselves", providing them this that one choice in the array of many. It's the Harper's government decision to remove that choice that brought up those same simple questions you still struggle to answer: What? Which? How?

And also, the element that would want us to bodypaint orange and green and walk in circles and upside down? OK, good for them. But what you persistently fail to understand is that it's their own private issue that's got nothing to do with anybody else here. After all, we are all independent and free individuals. Yes? No? Perhaps they could (accept), if / when shown good lead - by example? And so, we're still waiting to hear what "conditions" you're going to accept on public use of e.g. your arm; or kidney; etc; all with proper "reasoning" of course. BTW did you notice that I'm asking this simple question here for the fourth of fifth time already? Keeping my fingers crossed for better luck this time around ) Correct. That "middle" so obvious to great majority of Canadians is that it's simply bad taste trying to pry into private choices and decisions that pertain to individual involved and nobody else. In other words, it's not cool and pointless. Because either we should all start giving each other unsolicited advice about eating, dressing, personal hygiene and so on, or we'll reserve that privilege for some selected and highly respected individuals. Unless of course we happen to belong to great majority that considers either option equally ridiculous. Yep, some of the world (please note the highlight, so easy to get yourself confused in these complexities) views the issue different from us here, you've proven that point and it's good to know that. And now, .... what? Thanks, but it all depends on the meaning of that word "choice" or "freedom" in your interpretation. For elaboration of which we're still waiting, patiently (see above). Maybe it's pro- your "choice" to lecture and moralise on other's private decisions, while their "choice" is limited to obeying the preaching?

Good for you (if it's true that is, in a different way from your claim of being "pro choice" while arguing for limitation of it), but it's no secret that much of anti abortion crowd complete with their spiritual leader Pope are opposed to contraception as well. And this is because uneducated (not in the least through the need to care for young children, from young childhood) vulnerable and hopeless people are the prime target of backward ideologies. Could it be because they'd have little notion of individual rights, or will to stand up for them? Those ideologies want nothing more than to rid of these dangerous innovations, and revert the society back to the archaic uneducated way of life that allowed them to control it for so long. Right of abortion is the right to control one's own body. No, you don't want to compromise that right in any way - for yourself. Only to impose it on others, as a way to control them. Anything else, to elaborate?

Yeah right there's precisely one universally correct answer to any question.

Somehow I think it's not the abortions but this: Canada: teen pregnancy rates falling sharply that drives these folks nuts these days. Less helpless, vulnerable people = fewer fodder minds for their useless, desperately outdated ideology.

No, it's totally different "raod". That has nothing to do with the current, observable space-time. Everything to do with every one last unbelievable straw to apologise and defend undefendable (from the lofty moral position of Civilized Democracy) blatantly aggressive and provocative persistent and ongoing acts.

The subtle and really easy to overlook difference between these cases would be their space-time relationship to the current observable reality. While one is in the past the other is still happening. I.e. being actively perpetrated, perhaps with a view to change ethnic composition of population for the purpose of establishing control over it. Which in other times and places we could call no less than a "Crime Against Humanity" and execute a noble and liberating actions about. That's when the stars happen to align in the true direction and we happen to be looking the right way.

Could it be the same with this one (is it really so hard to recognise one's own countryman):