myata

Has anybody said "elimination"? We get so easily obtuse, or hard of hearing on occasion. Hint: make it (massive financial and military aid) conditional on the recipient abiding the conditions of deescalation of their conflict, primarily ceasing clear and ongoing acts of aggression. No? When one becomes complicit in these acts of aggression themselves, there can't be two ways about it. OK, so then somebody attempts to "settle" your house, you'll accept their act as such? I trust you. That imagination will without doubt take you far. As far as that other poster claiming clear "progress" in this desperate situation. Also, "non violent" indeed. All those military units in the occupied territories, settlers not leaving homes without their guns are just peaceful decorations. Yeah, right, and you're by far not the first one to entertain this approach, and we can see very clearly where it's taken the situation so far. It's always good to know how what one says relate to what they do. Adds a lot to understanding of the individual.

They got confused only because we keep entertaining the notion that some wars (like those perpetrated by us) can be good. Without such notion, we would simply have to find a way to deal with the terrorist organisation without getting involved into invasion and civil war on a foreign soil. Till we finally get to this understanding, our good interntions will continue to be "confused", mired, and ultimately result in the act not unlike that we were claiming to counter.

I'll explain. Afghanistan had a working government that existed on its own. It was a nasty looking (to us) government, almost entirely inconsistent with (our) principles, but it was Afghan government and it didn't require 100,000 foreign troops, thousands of civilian death annually, and decade long civil war to work. We went their to change the way the country was, to remake it into our own image. To me, that's got nothing, zero to do with our security. Why did we go and what will we actually accomplish? To me these are irrelevant questions. We were not, nor are defending ourselves on our ground, and so this is a war of aggression and invasion, it should be deemed illegal, and its organizers and executors - sent to jail. This way, in time, there will be less wars. If we keep talking about why my "going" is so much better and necessary than theirs, you shouldn't count on it anytime soon, or ever.

It still comes down to one of the two options though. If Israel's government knows that moneys and arms will keep coming no matter what, they'll keep building those settlements talk or no talk. Which would make it quite hard to keep avoiding the question, whether as sponsors of perpetrator of this illegal activity, we should be deemed complicit in it too? As well as which part of our mouth (settlement are bad) or (massive aid to Isreal is good) is speaking the truth of our heart. As said, we won't have to wait long now to find out.

I'd love that solution. For it to actually work though, we'd need a law by which all these falks could be prosecuted - because there'll never be a time when a little successful "operation" wouldn't earn a few useful benefits to this bureaucrat, or that politician - the law that would deem these operations clearly and unmistakenly illegal and criminal, and anybody complicit in them, from organisation to execution - liable to criminal prosecution. Yes we can defend our country without messing up in others.

Indeed, only somebody with serious issues in the medical, more precisely, mental department would fail to see the direct link between massive material aid given to one side in the conflict, and its blatant disrespect to internationally recognised principles of resolution. The words, rhethorics won't cut it anymore, as they failed to do for a while now. It is 1) practical, strong measures to stop settlement activity now, or 2) direct and clear complicity in Israel's aggressive policies that without any doubt stand in the way of resolution, and very likely would result in yet another escalaton of conflict.

If only it mattered though. The opposition is in tatters, media will have their run, Harper will give us another minor tax credit, and all will go away, things returning to "normal", i.e quiet, undisturbed self enjoyment and gratification. Better get used to it, folks. In this setting reality of our democracy, there will be no real checks on the government barring a really major, grand screwup.

True. One can no longer deny that massive assistence to Israel makes it extremely unlikely that its government would feel any real need to budge on the settlements issue, which is a major factor in the escalation of the conflict, just as militancy by extreme Palestinian groups. There's now a very clear choice, between making any material assistence to Israel strictly conditional on its stopping all settlement activity, or becoming complicit in that activity and consequently, escalation of conflict. Rhetorics will not change anything, and we'll see very soon (in political terms) which practical choice it is going to be.

Can't have it all. Somebody else will have a pony, and we'll have our comfy, quiet and uneventful retirement in this old age of democracy. To each, their own.

And just when our honourable PM was about to begin lecturing those lesser people on human rights and democracy during his forthcoming visit to China, the news of torture scandal hit China's airwaves: http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=22653917 (MSN news). Now he'll have lot more credibility there. Always wondering how is it with our conservative minded folks, that they never shy away from sniffing other folks sh.. while having their own smell of roses and look like posies.

And yet, without curiousity to invent or see new, and intelligence to understand it, as well as courage and will to act, we'll be stuck exactly where we are forever.

That depends fairly and squarely on what we want (no actually, what we are). Thriving, live political contest can only exist in the society that is politically savvy, looking forward and not afraid of change. In other words, alive. Otherwise, we're bound to keep that tweedle duo forever, they'll stand by for each other in cases of major screwups, but otherwise would follow exact same (with miniscule, barely noticeable variations) policy, ie. "do nothing unless your back is firmly and squarely against the wall". If that's what we want / are, we have achieved our ideal, and have nothing more to ask or desire from this (political) life.

No, no we don't want a pony. Or in fact, anything new or different that is one microinch away from what we've grown used to in the two hundred years since this country was created. The terrible whine and "misunderstanding" of coalition - or that semi micro proportionate experiment in Ontario (really - it must be indeed so mentally tough to come to understand that two, three, five parties can actually form an accord and govern in agreement - something folks pretty much everywhere else have figured out decades back) has shown it very clearly. So let's finally be honest with ourselves - we don't really want anything new, debatable or resembling of movement or change. All we want is comfortable and smug retirement in the same smug old house built decades and generations back. And therefore we'll have nothing to complain when our only two "governable" parties offer us just that, without any real contest, or difference between them. After all, this what we want - collectively - and it's exactly what we get. The ramblings about "lack of choice" are only customary venting. What's the point of having a choice, when one doesn't really want, or need any?

No, the freeze is nowhere near in sight: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8364815.stm - Isreal approves construction of 900 homes in the occupied East Jerusalem. Let's recall that there hasn't been a significant escalation of militant violence for at least several months now, while build up of settlements is puffing along unobstructed, Obama or not. Which should finally give us (anybody with an unbiased, objective view of the situation) a clear answer as to whether there really are any innocent peaceful poor and abused lambs in this conflict that deserve, no, require friendly support as well as multibillion financial and military assistance.

Indeed, stealing, burning, kicking out, etc is fully justified, if the other is "terrorist" (savage; worthless pygmy; alien; infidel); evil conspirators financing my country's demise. As long as my justification works for me, these acts are fully understandable, acceptable and even commendable.

In the world where most major players had a legislation against initiation or participation in aggressive wars, it may not have happened at all. Or if it did, the aggressor would be seen much clearer. We are not attempting to "legislate peace" though. Only saying to ourselves, and we world that we abandon aggressive war as an instrument of achieving our goals. This in itself should eventually bring about a more peaceful future, but no guarantees, only doing the right thing. I'm sure one could come up with many hypothetical situations. It's also very clear, even from the past examples like e.g. blockade of West Berlin, that a determined community of states sharing common principles of non-aggression would be able to do much and go far before having to abandon these principles for the sake of survival, perceived or real. How far, only the real experience would be able to tell. Some are and some arent'. The obvious truth is that the fewer players consider aggressive wars as a legitimate instrument of policy, the fewer wars are going to happen. I'm quite certain that eventually, in the society of states we would come to the same understanding as in the society of individuals, i.e that aggressive violence is inacceptable and should be prosecuted on the same level as a common crime.

I could not find any news about resolution of the settlements issue in the media. The article quotes the old one of temporary freeze on the new settlement projects. As we all know by now, there are several massive (in the thousands of units) projects that are being build even as we speak. Which goes to the approach we discussed previously and at lenght with another poster here. In the absense of real progress, one could always shuffle some words around and make it look as if there is. If Obama gives in to reducing his strategy to the oldtime word games, his international appeal, complete as it is with advance Nobel prize could diminish very quickly.

No, you misunderstood, or misinterpreting. Quality of life is modern, environmentally friendly, livable cities. It's high speed train that'll take you from Toronto to Montreal in two hours, without costing you a fortune too. Government services, easy and accessible to you wherever in the country you happen to be. Communications infrastructure that gives you access to world's knowledge anywhere. Quality and affordable child care, so that more people could find and go to work knowing that their children aren't just being taken care of, but also receive best early years development assistence to help them succeed in the future. And many other things you could name. Anybody and all of us would benefit from these programs if they were to be put in place. It's just that in our collective choices we decide to forego these opportunities in favour of stuffing our homes, cottages, garages, etc with more, and ever more of diverse, ubiquitous stuff. Why complain about lacking political choices then? To everybody, their own. To those who seek diversity, progress and innovation - lively political landscape, debates, initiatives, successes and failures. To those who only dream of how they'll retire in the comfort of their safe and familiar lair - invisible government, endless debates on how we're going to do something without actually doing anything, and above all, no change to status quo.

I would add two more, of equally universal value: 1) sustainable development, and 2) quality of living (infrastructure, communications, accessability of programs, quality child care and development, etc ). These are nowhere on any practical agenda though. And we're going to see our prize social programs crumble down and eventually slip through our fingers, because we're so afraid of change and reluctant to risk and try new. Standing still is going back. In social development as much as everywhere else.

Very simple - same thing as in the ROC. With CPC moved toward the mainstream "center", there isn't anymore enough political room for two in the same electoral bed of aging, apathetic, focused above all else on preservation of status quo and self gratification "average" voter. The Conservatives are better suited to capture that segment due to their long time concept of "little government" (plays into aging "average" voter's aversion to change) and natural propensity to stoke fear, like e.g. that non-existent crime wave (plays into aging "average" voter's perception of golden old times). The Libs could have attempted to move on and embrace the active, open to change electorate (it probably still exists, though perhaps in diminishing numbers) with an activist, forward looking agenda, but they are afraid, or not ready, or whatever. Barring a major, no, disastrous CPC screwup (= miracle), I don't see much hope for their current strategy.

Whether to consider moving a good thing or not, is very much a personal choice, something we cannot question because different individuals are so, well, different. I'm only saying that it's hard to imagine a vigorous political contest about the best way to stay where we are and enjoy life as it comes. The obvious recepy, the one now adopted by both main parties, and also the only ones that could ever be elected to govern in this country, is "do little, say a lot". That's without doubt all what's going to happen here in the foreseable future, and it should certainly meet your aspirations of not wasting those precious taxpayer $$ on anything but holy consumption of more and ever prettier STUFF. That's OK, nothing out of normal, only a well known symptom of advancing old age, and all things must run their course under this sun.

I'm not at all sure about that "very much" part. Some voters, maybe. But the majority? How much of the cash destined to feed SUV, yet another home reno or vacation trip would it care to divert to those "socially liberal" policies and initiatives, unless they are destined only to fly as empty words in the wind? We've seen it with the "Green shift". There's a saying something to the extent that "staying still is going back". So obviously, majority of Canada is in no way interested in going anywhere (like environment friendly, sustainable economy, social policies, like meaningful child care, accessible college education, investment in modern city infrastructure, urban transit, high speed trains, etc), just staying where we are and enjoying what we have. And one doesn't need a whole lot of creative political contest just to stay where they are, pretty much any one party will do, as long as it doesn't screw up majorly. Is this condition temporary, I don't know but I'd like to think so, if only for the sake of my kid, who'd otherwise be running a serious risk of succumbing to fatal boredom long before old age.

And what if there isn't any such gap, anymore? If we only want continuation of the status quo, no cent spent on any change or innovation (like sustainable economy; international initiatives; truly peaceful foreign policy), unless it's for my very own hip replacement? Why would we need more than one party then (and even that mostly for entertainment purposes)?

My sentiment exactly. A bored, aging country, stricken by alternating fobias of terrorisms or miscellaneous flues, wants no bold decisions, strong principles, has no desire or will for change. Pay less and do nothing, with that anything goes. Oh yeah, and take good care of my hip / arthritis. Is it of any surprise that both main parties offer just that? Any we won't be getting anything much different anytime soon. No, I doubt that even a bunch of fresh faces would make a huge lot of difference.

Regardless of how many times we'll chant "remember", we actually remember nothing. We needed a friendly SOB to keep things under the lid (i.e the way we wants them) x,000 miles away from where we actually are. And the SOB knows very well that we need them too. A healthy (or unholy?) symbiotic relationship, or call it mutual dependency, or a truimph of democracy, whatever suits one's current agenda.