myata

There's only one (but fatal nonetheless) problem with the "stick should be mine, only" argument, that it works exact same way on the other side. Till we learn (or understand the need) to walk our own talk, people would want the stick for any number of reasons (to "project" power, like us, to defend themselves, from us and others, as a bargaining tool and so on). And on occasion, they'll get what they want. There're only two options sustainable in the long run: 1) Nukes are bad for our world: nobody is allowed to have them, no exception. OR 2) Nukes are OK (for us; and by extension, for anybody who could get them).

Of course, it's entirely irrelevant and ludicrous to discuss - or even notice! - me (and mine) having the bomb. The problem is always with them, the others! I can have it because... I can. Nobody else should be allowed to have it because they're bad. Because .. I said so. World runs very smoothly when there's only one interest (mine) to worry about.

With one minor addition: current nuclear club members agree and sign up to a timed committment to eliminate their own stocks of nukes, completely, 100%. Without it, the prohibition would look hypocritical - and likely, unenforceable in practice due to varying interests of the current nuke powers. If that is unattainable dream, I think there will be no other practical choice but to work out a process of "adoption" of new members into the "nuclear" club. It should include guarantees of no distribution of technology. The status quo, whereby some countries could remain outside of either set of rules, is worst of all. The problem is that it is also the most flexible one, allowing nuke powers to remain as ambiguous about who and where they'd want to enforce "non-prliferation" agenda with next time around, as they want to be.

No, how could we!? We only meddle in some countries.

The problem for Ignatieff is that he's been defined (by himself, or Harper, I think more of the former), as a softer, more intelligent, more centrist Harper. Really. Is there any one major issue in where Ignatieff stood up with something drastically different than Harper's? Let's see: 1) Afghanistan 2) Economy action 3) Employment insurance and even democratic coalition. Who cares about little conditions and qualifications he tried to stick in, and Harper accepted, laughingly, who'd care about those or even remember them? In everybody's mind Ignatieff is mixed up in anything Harper does, except in the name. So, here we go. Ignatieff is supposed to be "our" Harper. The problem is, it wouldn't get him any extra votes from Harpers' folks (why would they want a quasi una Harper, when there's a real one?), but it'll certainly lose him quite a bit from those who wouldn't have anything to do with Harper in any form. I'm really not sure how he would get out of this now. Maybe if everything's changed and forgetten, in another year? But wouldn't he look extremely opposite of smart (and loose all credibility, whatsoever), if NDP took him on his word, and he'd bow out? I dunno. I don't see much hope neither for the guy, nor the Liberal brand, in the near future. Why did it play out this way? Maybe, the Liberals were way too concerned with what new face they'd put on the party, rather than democratic renewal, defining party's vision and principles?

Is that choice of epithets supposed to make up for the lack of logic? E.g. have you noticed that Iran haven't actually attacked anybody just yet, while somebody else, whose massive arsenal of nukes you wouldn't as much as notice, has been involved, for several decades at least, in a massive buildup of occupied lands, an obvious and clear act of agression? And. In this, current reality, of all the people who ever happened to possess the nukes so far, including crazy, fanatical and so on, like Russian communists, Chinese whatever, and military hunta in Pakistan, only one has actually used them against people (mostly, or almost entirely, civilians). Guess which one (crazy, or fanatical, no?) it cold have been? Yes we should all have learned it by now, democratic liberation of the world comes rife with not so peaceful paradoxes.

We already know this answer, no need to reiterate. I = the pride and moral justice of this world he (whoever dares to oppose me) = utter abomination Certainly explains why I and I only can have nukes, invade other countries, and generally run the affairs of this world. ---------------------------------------------- One of the points in the previously posted article is that Israel intends to maintain nuclear domination in the region. From both logic of human behavior, and past experience US - USSR, China - India - Pakistan), we know that such position is unstable, and therefore a nuclear opposition in Middle East is probably only a matter of time. We could have attempted to avoid that possibility by insisting (and if necessary, enforcing) that nobody in the region had possession of nukes. Thats is obvioulsy, not our choice, and so, Amen.

I agree, actually, and I said it previously. One option is indeed to "whack" them. In Iran ... and Israel, too. No? Why not?

Well somebody showed us the lead how it could be done - in Iraq. Wonder what's stopping those same otherwise very concerned people to follow their own word, in this case also. Oh and BTW they appear to be on quite frindly terms with the subject of interest, so no invasion may be need after all. But ... no interest! Here, we have it, and there - we don't. None at all. Whatsoever. A very puzzling mystery. BTW every statement in that article is referenced. Unlike somebody else's "speculations" - here.

In a story I heard on CBC radio awhile back a suggestion was made that perhaps it was attempted to smuggle in a relative under Ms A's guise. It would certainly explain many of otherwise mysterious events attributed to this story. A possible scenario: - somebody shows up in the embassy and claims to be Ms A who lost her passport; she's seeking to obtain a new one (but with a slightly different spelling of her name). She gets her passport and enters Canada; - awhile later, (real) Ms A finds her original passport, buys ticket and flies to Canada; - result: there are now two instances of Ms A in Canada now, each with her own passport, and no costly time consuming and most importantly, restrictive immigration procedures involved. I don't think we should write off those 2.5 millions just yet. And, I'm all for this actually going to the court, so that at least not every legitimate attempt to prevent illegal entry to Canada is instantly interpreted as an abuse of power of state. A question though: what should be a legitimate reaction of a state toward such possible abuse (short of physically arresting alleged impostor, how could a case of abuse being proven, to charge and convict the offender)?

Wikipedia: Israel and Nuclear weapons Polichinelle's secret for all otherwise seriously concerned with (highly selective) nuclear proliferation.

Except nobody really knows why. What is it that Iggy has (other than Himself) that Harper doesn't do already? Still a tight secret, in case somebody finds out (the truth)?

Covering up a buddy who has amassed gross volumes of bad stuff, while condemning somebody else for even maybe and still unprovenly, attempting to get one, is not hypocrisy though, no, how could it be? It's not hypocrisy because condemning another for something I do myself is not hypocrisy because when I do it, it cannot be hypocrisy and then they do it, it certainly is. Because I'm fully entitled to whatever I do and they are only entitled to whatever I tell them to, and when they're saying they won't do it, it's hypocrisy because I told them to in the first place. There, saved you some mental effort. Do you really have anything else to add here?

And where do you get a notion the democratic (whatever you want to call them - lovely freedomlovers?) do? In a twisted game, only the best liar wins. That's a no win game as far as I'm concerned.

There can be two fair and sustainable in the long run solutions in this situations: 1) Israel and Iran both denounce nuke weapons and enter NPT. 2) Israel and Iran both develop nuke weapons and enter NPT as nuclear powers. The sketchy and hand twisty selective application of "rules" is a travesty that cannot be sustained, neither from moral or logical, nor from practical perspective.

Of course. Balance can only be found with me (or those who suck up to me). Nothing changes.

I think the decision is the right one. We cannot abandon individual who may not be able to come up with a full cost of treatment to a near certain death. But we can recover the full cost to the society from the business that makes profit from this habit. I do believe that if we want to be a healthy and sustainable society, this principle should be applied constistently and in utmost detail. Only in this way to encourage clean sustainable business that benefits both us and our environment.

What is money, though, other than an epitome, synonim of shortage and limitation. What if there's enough food for everybody, enough clothing and cars can be made to suit all (OK, other than most outrageous) demands? What would then be the purpose of capitalism, government and such things in that society? Can we imagine a possibility when one's live (OK, average individual's life) wouldn't have to be reduced to counting beans?

Parroting the best you could do here? You surprised me! Certainly somebody could have answered your question (about Israel's nukes) once and for all. If only they'd show some interest in the affair. Like a fraction of the interest and money they spent digging up non existent ones in Iraq. As it stands though, the interest (in non proliferation, "peace", "democratic" elections, prosecution of responsible for mass violence or whatever else) appears to extend only to certain, very patchy areas and events of this world. Yeah those ones.. where a baddy of the day happens to be involved. And if and when it's one of ours, it's still business as usual - i.e., no interest. Keep looking, your question may yet be answered... some time. I wouldn't bet on any time soon though.

Then you can certainly hold them as your private beliefs, but hardly more than that till the time you have some factual information to confirm your words. Every leader coming out of a "poorly handled" (for whatever it means) election is illegitimate? Like G.W. Bush? whoever it is in China? Medvedev in Russia? Like a half of the world have "illegitimate" leaders? As decided by who? Its better 10%? the same one you haven't provided, so please qualify it with at least "I believe" or something like that. Would that same principle also apply to violence at e.g. G7 summits? I'm not condoning violence, but any such reaction must be qualified by a close and detailed investigation, that simply havent' happened here. Any suppression of dissent means "illegitimate" government? Like Canada's G7 in Vancouver and Quebec? No I don't mind getting out at all. According to the information I'm hearing and reading, the regime in Iran, certainly unlikeable from any Western point of view, is still supported by majority. And I'm certainly open to discussion of any information that could suggest otherwise, and also open to changing my point of view as a result of this discussion. Needless to say that we still have to see anything resembling it. Why not, though (and many others btw)? How do you decide which kind of violence (and by who) is legitimate, and which - is not? If violence against more or less peaceful protest is inacceptable in principle, you'll find many, many governments in this world that should be illegitimate. If you have some fine criteria for deciding, you forgot to share it with us. I can't comment on your take of events because it's different from mine and I can't say which one is closer to reality without rereading the facts. That I have little interest in doing. However if you still have the evidence of "observers" declaring the entire election "falcified" (as seems to be implied in the earlier post), you're very welcome to post it. Again, we can't just take you on your word here. If you can show that such promises existed, as direct threats to attack any one country, it would certainly be an example of aggressive behaviour that has to be condemned. Not at all abstract, only that there isn't one common and obvious standard of legitimacy in the world, and therefore one should at least come with serious and proven arguments before declaring anybody they don't like (I may not like them either) as "illegitimate". Loose words can only lead to loose meanings and loose meanings well do not mean much.

Of course it's one big, fat double standard, what else? You can't be allowed to have what we have already, unless you submit to us, suck up and so on. There. Still the best international strategy we could come up with in the third millenium.

OK, "if not with us, then terrorist" thing, don't we already know it, by heart. Good stuff! So very novel, creative and most importantly, convinces on the spot. No surprise there, self righteous attitudes and less than stellar high school achievements often go hand in hand. Beats me, why? Just google it (e.g wikipedia). Any nuke is a potential threat to people and the planet, as Hiroshima and Cuba crisis tell us. Some remain completely ignorant though, that a threat can come from them (and theirs) as good as the others, no matter what their own track record clearly shows. That's why we had, have and will have conflicts, cold and hot wars, which on occasion would involve sending our people to fight in the remote lands. In the observable future and until such time as you would actually understand, that the best way to have peace is to be peaceful ourselves. Without any creative exceptions. Because any exception to peace is war, violence and agression. Regardless of creative terminologies you'd want to put on it.

And that would make us right in blowing them up too? BTW I use "we" in the general sense of "West" (I thought it was clear from the context), Canada is of course invited to establish it's own, independent and distinct position by insisting that standards of non-proliferation be applied to all players, friends and not so much alike. Till that happens though, we'll have to assume that Canada's OK with selective application of nuclear safety principles, and therefore has as much credibility insisting on somebody's observance, as the parties directly sponsoring foreign military programs, and acknowledging or even tacitly encouraging development of nuclear arsenals by selected friendlies. Right, they must be there purely for esthetical pleasures while governement of the day goes about ongoing business of collecting biblical lands. And so? We've already know what our treaties, standards and principles are worth. Why exactly does it matter? There only two possible scenarios 1) everybody disarms, no exceptions; or 2) everybody (who can) arms up, and (hopefully!) the combined forces of others keep each player from doing something stupid. We seem to be having issues with #1, so it's got to be the other alternative, we better admit it (us ourselves, having chosen and insisted on it) and learn to live with it.

As our, Western influence appears to be incapable of bringing any sort of balance into the situation in the Middle East, (it's our way, or no way), it'll have to be found somewhere else. The nature does not endure vacuum. And human nature does not easily endure total domination by another, even superhumanly peaceful and/or democratic in nature. Nuclear Iran may be the easiest solution to the conundrum. It'll have to behave more responsibly, and it'll have its position actually heard. Too bad it could end up being a radical, confrontational position, but it's near always the case when people are driven to the edge without regard for their legitimate grievances or interests.

Right, we've certainly seen it happen in Iraq. Right again, those toys should be reserved for the good people, the ones that could use them wisely, like e.g. covering their stealing occupied lands, or persuading an opponent who does not have them with a live demo, on occasion. Every major player so far have abided by the rules. Why - try to figure that out.