myata

Really, so simple, just say "No"! Unless... could it be that they're getting those benefits (in the form of massive financial and military assistance) anyways and regardless (of NPT, it's position in the conflict or anything else)?

Not bending enough appropriating more and more of occupied lands? Such a poor, defenceless (with 400 nukes and annual billion $$ assistence to develop new weapons) and innocent lamb :-(

Two of which are our (Western) allies, of varying degree. And no concerns, whatsoever. Surprise? Coincidence? Or pattern?

How do we know that this, present one, is broken though? Every times there's an incident of reoffence, the wail goes all the way up to the sky. But have we seen much of reliable, confirmed stats on reoffence rates, how many of these incidents out of thousands of paroled inmates? Or would you want one that works perfectly, like your nailing that nail in the wall 1000 times out of thousand? No, I'm not at all for leniency on principle. Rather, policies and approaches that actually work to prevent and reduce incidence and severity of crime. Not ideological theories. At every step up the criminal ladder there should be a barrier to keep as many individuals as possible from crossing it. That can be the way to reduce crime. Dropping everybody to swim on their own, handing a gun in each hand - virtually failsafe recipe to have more of it, no matter penalties.

OK, it's the ground that matters, clear enough. So if A knocks B on the head on the ground of "terrorism", it's a big fat no-no. If on the other hand, the ground is of "advancement of freedom and such things", it's allright and you're welcome. Correct? Oh wait, who decides which ground is which? How do I know that your ground is better than mine (or should it be the other way around)?

Let's see: 1) Borrowing that kindly suggested rule of association, Canada has been a vocal and strong "supporter" of Israel, of late. 2) "Support", again, following the suggested rule (of association) qualifies for complicity in the associate's "accomplishments". 3) Israel has been accused, in an official UN investigation, as well as several non-governmental organisations, of causing excessive civilian casualties. 1,2,3 -> Canada may be complicit excessive civilian casualties caused by Israel's military operations. As well as, to add, any escalation of hostilities caused by its ongoing practice of expanding illegal settlements. No? The equation only works one (particular) way?

Would that conclusion work the other way around too? I.e. if we finance and support somebody we've gotta be accountable as accomplices of their acts? I wonder.

You meant this country: Slate: Police brutality? Please be more clear. And of course, lives of other "citizens" shouldn't matter (BBC: civilian casualties in Gaza conflict)

Those would be quite generic statements, of the kind "if you don't see it the way I am, you must be, that". BTW you happen to have a reference handy (of those UN observers all saying the entire election was "fradulent"), people sometimes back their words with some sort of factual evidence? I'm not aware such conclusion existed but I would certainly be interested to see it, and it'd certainly influence how I see that election. Which is, more or less, that people should be able to run their country the way they see fit, and we have no f... business telling them how they should be doing it, until at least we cleared our own act. Why do I have to question it? Do I have enough knowledge of what the people (all people) in the country think? How violent btw? Any more violent than our recent democratization of Iraq? Much more violent than incidents at some recent GX summits? Are you sure your record is correct? In my undestanding, the recounts were conducted, and it's another election that has been denied. If I'm wrong on that (which could be, I only followed these events on mainstream media) I'll be much grateful for the update. That may be so, from some point of view at least, but, the question is, do people of that country, any country have th right to vote for an anti-American president? How many did actually vote for Ahmedinejad? What evidence do you hav that the actual result of this election would have been different? They didn't run another election in the US a few years back (there recount indeed has not been allowed, if I remember correctly), nor would they in Afghanistan. Why should they go out of their way to meet your concerns then?

Henry Kissinger has already commented on that aptly awhile back. Rephrasing, "they may be maniacs, but our own maniacs". Choice of terminology aside, if Israel with its track record of hostilities, violence and unabated agression should be entitled to handly bunch of nukes, there wouldn't many nations on the face of planet that should not. Enough of that Iraq / Afghanistan / Cuba / Syria / Iran threat to our survival bs already. Clean up your own act, then may be somebody someday would want to hear your cermons.

Would anybody here be able to post the list of confirmed violations (concerns and speculations aside) of NPT by Iran? I thought the beef was that us, the peaceloving West, did not want them to use any nuclear technology, period; or else, a perfectly legal technology that we thought may not be good for them because (unlike some of our friends who actually may have a serious bunch unprotocolled nukes, plus being involved in conflicts from day 1, plus pressing with agressive policies full speed and so on) we just happen to think that they should not?

I don't. Only that "tough justice" by itself does not solve any crime related problems. On the other hand, it could help in solving a particular government's reelection problems by throwing up an eye catching populist agenda. To J-F: it's not a matter of being our brother's keeper, more like coming up with a rational policy to achieve meaningful goals (like reducing levels and severity of crime), rather than somebody's ideological views (criminals are born bad and should rot in hell).

It could solve a particular government's problems though. Or the government may think so. On the society side, it's more or less 2 x 2, the societies with "tough justice" almost invariably have highest rates of crime.

No of course you wouldn't question the right of a state that's been involved in a bitter dispute with its neighbours, and is continuinig a clear and persistent policy of agression, to possess a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons. Well, let's sum it all up: - We alone should have the right to possess (and use? as per factual track record) nuclear weapons. - We (and ours) should be allowed to appropriate more and more of others land - We (and ours) should be allowed to attack first and without provocation. Sounds clear enough already? Nothing new there either. Other than that peaceful freedomloving cloak, that can be donned and removed on a spot, as needed.

How do you know that, though? Through ingrained staunch and unquestionable belief? Or actual record in the mirror (Hiroshima, Vietnam, Latin American dictators, Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East)? Condemning tyrants in Iran and Lybia and encouraging and supporting (how should we call them - freedom apprentices??) in Afghanistan or e.g. Egypt?

By telling us and everybody that we came to listen and talk, rather than play pack games with predetermined outcome? We don't happen to have another, better humankind, and ourselves, in the reality mirror, and by actual track record, we could hardly pretend to be a better part of it. Re Iraq for example, cost much more in lost lives that "detained journalists" so who exactly are we to teach the others, even nasty and unlikeable ones, what they should do? Wouldn't it be much more convincing to start showing some example, for a change?

1) So you already know they were "fradulent", don't you? What would you call the recent Afghan elections then, a triumph of democracy? 2) So you already know what "the Iranians" (in general, one has to assume) think and want?

Seriously though, let's analyse that scenario (which some can't wait to happen). Suppose Israel (itself suspected of having a massive - for a country of its size nuclear program - to mention, completely and totally outside of the sphere of interests of otherwise highly concerned about non-prolifiration leaders of the free world. Like, they don't happen to see it, so it doesn't exist). Anyways, suppose Israel, itself suspected of having a massive nuke program, for a country of its size, chose to attack. Suppose Iran, being attacked without provocation, responds in force. $100 question: what would justice loving, nuke proliferation concerned leaders of the West do in that situation? I.e who would they condemn for the escalation of situation: 1) Iran, for attempting to do the same that Israel already did on a much more massive scale? 2) Israel for obvious and unprovoked attack (no such chance, eh?)

No, it doesn't despise all dictators, only the unfriendly ones. Of course, any critism of my pack means automatic fondness for theirs, haven't we (you and I) already established that here, but thanks anyways.

It was different on ICC though; on land mines treaty; on Kyoto (under Bush); on Iraq; on Middle East. Enough already? Everything that's coming out of Harper's government now, has to be two steps behind that of the US, according to barking order in the pack. It's nothing to do with my own, just a fact of reality.

Independent standing, where people would actually have a reason to listen and respect Canada's position (land mines treaty, ICC, balanced position in Middle East) because it would not necessarily echo that of another country?

the audience, point taken. And so, any other comments on the subject, we've made (you and I) great inroads into understanding pack mentality so far?

Yes, correct: I have to respect and even love him, or he is a "nazi" (and all such things). Please keep telling us all about how pack mentality works.

Yes, a nice example, please continue, it's very entertaining (and educating for those who have yet to find out what pack mentality is all about).

I understand, it's either my pack, or theirs. Tell us more about pack mentality (better still, show, i.e keep showing it).