myata

Most certainly you can "say" almost anything, having it proved by fact and logical argument is an entirely different story, at which you have been much less successful, so far.

Not true, yet again. Unlike some of your own comments in this thread, they do not relate to your persona, and are focused exclusively on your advocated approach to the problem that is a very fine example of everything that is wrong with this pseudo peace process. To JBG: you were praised for being honest and open in your support of clearly agressive policies of the side you chose to cheer for, unlike those other posters here who, for all practical ends, would act the same way, but at that would pretend that they are busy executing some kind of a critical peace mission. As soon as these posters admit that in their vision, Canada's role should become that of unconditional support of one side in the conflict, I'll consider it as a clear and honest position and this discussion will be over. Individuals could then decide for themselves whether they'd want to vote for a party that hinges its position in the serious international affairs on electoral considerations of the moment, instead of long standing principles.

I think we've been at that already, and possibly multiple times. Adressing specific security threats (oh and by the way, that notion of "threat to interests" can be so-oooooooo stretchable) does not have to translate into rebuilding lesser people in our own image, does it? No, and we've been at that also. I'd like to see a working system of international justice, where the decision to act would be based on a solid legal process rather than "interest" of the moment. And where the act, while adressing the issue in question, would not necessarily cause aforementioned rebuilding.

Apologies, it must have been cut and paste error. Well, that's an interesting argument. My agression should be allowed to continue, because stopping it would be too much cost - to me. Or because .. whatever. Maybe, because I don't want (to stop it) in the first place. That's a position of an agressive side, and of course, if it doesn't need peace and not preparted to make steps toward it, of which bringing to halt all major hostile and agressive acts is the first priority, then no peace is possible. The outsiders may attempt to convince hostile sides that pursuing peace is in their long term interest, or they could withdraw their support from all parties involved in hostilities, and let them come to that understanding on their own terms, but what they shouldn't do, in the way of practical work for peace, is to throw their support on any one side, ignoring their agressive behavior, or trying to rationalize or excuse it. Of course, it's not an iron and stone rule, simply a very logical conclusion that while stones and kicks are thrown around, there wouldn't be much room for sensible, responsible negotiations. Just what we see. No that would be the starting point. The goal of process would be to create conditions where both sides could exist in peace and reasonable prosperity. Correct. No, of course not. Only by establishing a level of trust, parties can begin to believe that peaceful coexistence is possible. Such trust is hardly possible when sides are involved in active hostilities. I certainly wouldn't argue with that, both sides would need to understand the advantages of peace, and outside parties could certainly play a part in it (I wouldn't disagree with guarantees of peace, within the borders). What is not the part for peace though, is persistently, glaringly failing to notice onging massive acts of agression as such. This behaviour only encourages factions bent on furthering conflict on both sides. If we cant' accomplish any genuine good there, the next best, and the right thing to do would be to withdraw our support from all sides which wouldn't abandon hostilities and agression, and let them figure it out on their own terms and in their own time.

OK sorry, if we believe that Afghanistan and Iraq should qualify as the Third Reich of our days. But details aside, the question as said, is more about going forward, so are we going to continure doing same things as 500, 200, 60 years back, or show some ability to understand and learn?

It'd certainly help me to work on my attitudes, if you haven't forgot to explain exactly what part of my statement you call 'personalization'? That your position on the conflict is severely biased toward one side? I think it was sufficiently demonstrated by factual evidence. Or that your certain musings have nothing to do with the actual position that's been stated clearly so many times? I think that should be pretty obvious too, to anybody who'd bother to read and understand what is stated. And, nobody could deny the fact, that till now, nothing, zero, of real practical act has been done about the expansion of settlements, and you yourself stated that such act wouldn't be wise. Wouldn't it mean that your position would remain unchanged, and nothing will be done again, and again, while settlements continue to grow, as they do even now? And of course, the 70% increase in illegal settlements (and counting, daily) is also a fact of reality, rather than "personalization". So could it be that this complain is in fact a way to reconcile the idea (of "peace" and "good" what we do) with the reality that wouldn't really match it - by blaming the messenger for "personalization"?

Not really. Unlike above examples, Afghanistan never attacked the US. Likewise, Iraq (I wonder if the whole proposition has a ring of funnyness about it, or it's just me? Or like Vietnam assaulting US? Or.. any other case when a worthy reason had to be found for an absolutely necessary interference). Anyways, the question isn't really about the past, but the future. So far, the newborn Afghani "democracy" is showing all the obvious birthmarks of the traditional tribalism. The question: what is there to be gained by converting our resources, lives, and also, credibility, as supposedly "peaceful" nations, into these kind of pseudo democracies by name only? And what chance is there to speed up a process (oftentimes slow and painful) of development by dropping a few bombs on unwanted individuals here and there?

No, it only reveals (much of already known) about your incurably biased view on the issue. Of course you're free to keep musing about your own creative interpretations of something that has been stated clearly like a hundred of times, it's really the only "argument" you'd have left at this time. To JBG: Yes, I understand, thanks for openness and honesty. And so, one side will continue to use obvious agression to extract concession they need, and Dobbin would continue to call it "peace" and look the other way, peacefully. Let's guess when and how it will bring us actual peace. It took Dobbin's advocated plan two decades to grow illegal settlements near twofold. By all looks (and reports from the groung), the path of "successes" would continue.

With the latest news from the Afghan election, widely louded as long incoming onset of the holy democracy in these God (i.e. democracy) forsaken lands: BBC: Widespread fraud in Afghan election, these questions cannot be ignored any longer: 1) What exactly are we building there, with the force of our arms, "investment" or our resources, and sacrifice of our lives? 2) Will it eventually settle into the regular "our SOB" approach? 3) How long, and how many times will we have to try installing our morals, visions, governments, in the remote and unknown places of this world, before it finally dawns upon us, that a way of life cannot be transposed onto other, different people, but only imposed, temporarily, and at a huge, IOV fully and ultimately unjustifyable cost?

As before "we" brought it to them (with colonial policies, meddling, support of brutal regimes, and so on)? And after, who knows? The cycle goes on. And on. And on. Forever.

There was an example of certain emotional connection between individuals of species in fighting the scum of the land. That could be a start already, one the level of shared emotions, those of protecting life and standing up to those who'd stop at nothing to make it serve their ends. If these could be universal (ie we could accept it as such), who/how could say that other emotions, could not? I agree that exploring the further dilemma of Wikus would be an interesting undertaking. I'd certainly be thrilled to see it adressed in the future installments.

Well, this position, fresh from today's news, is certainly very ingenuous: BBC: Netanuahu to back more settlement construction. Let's attempt to translate it into plain English: - I'm going to continue my acts of hostility and agression till it suits my immediate needs; - I may suspend them temporarily to extract consessions from you that suit my needs (on trade, tourism, etc) - I can resume my acts of agression when and as I see fit. There's a word for that kind of behaviour in English, and it certainly isn't "peace". No, the word is "blackmail". And it is very obvious that our pseudo peaceful policies so far have ignored, condoned, and given tacit support to this form of blackmail, by failing (and possibly, conscioiusly refusing) to clearly identify, condemn, and react to these obvious acts of agression. Following that, all ostensibly peaceful talk can be safely discarded as the smokescreen for yet another remote project by the democratic coalition/gang, at least up until it decides to show some act to match its professions.

OK, you're saying that MP cannot post a quote from their speeches, or links to them, in their own blogs? OK, this statement is actually factually verifiable, except I'm not willing to spend any more of my time on it. If you can demonstrate that there's a legal or formal in any other way, requirement for an MP's blog to represent the official position of the party, I'll admit that you're correct and take my words back. Otherwise, ie. if there isn't any such requirement, we'll have live with yet another confused misunderstanding on your part, OK? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. Still, I cannot undertake to answer every question that can be asked, for reason or without, in this very wide world, sorry about that.

Well Dobbin, you certainly referenced the blog (in post #1153, and again in 1174), but I see no references to the reports. Could it be that once again, you have confused (oops!) the meanings of two simple words, "mentioning" and "referencing"? I'm sorry for failing to satisfy your curiosity, but I can't attempt to answer every question that can be asked in this wide world.

I may have used a less than precise term (unnatural) in the earlier post that does not address the subtlety of the issue. The question os interspecies prostitution would be intimately tied to those of (interspecies) attraction and, yes, love. Should those be deemed possible? In the context of the movie, i.e. on the assumption of significant commonalities in the intelligence, and purposes of existence, one would be hard challenged, in my view, to answer negatively. The aspect of the film that certainly merits further in-depth discussion.

Well, then you should have referenced the reports she provides to the committee, and not the blog. Unless in your party, all your opinions, public statements (and maybe even thoughts?) become the property of the party the day you sign up. Please keep telling me what I'm thinking and believe. It's very captivating (but also, hilarious). Only perhaps, for the sake of other possible readers of this thread, you could be so kind as to find another venue for that? Assuming that you have nothing else of substance to contribute here?

Why wouldn't it, Dobbin? Because as a (Liberal) MP, you turn off your brain for the term of your appointment? Nobody calls me 'c.... Naaaah, still not convinced

Why such a distinction should be made, though? I gave you a rational argument, that serious negotiations require some level of trust, and trust is not possible while sides are actively involved in acts of agression against each other. Therefore deescalation must precede all serious negotiations, and outsiders should convey this truth to all sides, untile they understand it. No such assumptions. Only the pure logic, that no negotiations are possible while active fight is still in progress. First step is to stop the fight. That means all forms of fight, regardless of what sides is involved and for what (obviosly, strongly held) reason. Not at all, the details of settlement could certainly be defined only by the sides involved in the conflict, in negotiations. However, before serious negotiations could even begin, all major hostilities have to cease. Without deescalation, what kind of negotiations could there be? On the legitimate ways in which the sides could lop each other? The legitimate age of concent of settler vs suicide bomber? If hostilities were to cease, it means that all forms of hostilities and agression have to cease. Yet we see and condemnt militant attacks, but it takes so much to make us even notice the agression in the form of expansion of illegal settlements. Certainly, and that obvious benefit is peace and the chance of prosperity and life free of war and violence for all sides. It should not be and could not be allowing some parties to retain their agressive policies on a selective basis, as it breaks the trust and returns the conflict back to square one, i.e to active hostility, where no serious negotiations are possible. Indeed there's nothing universal, eternal and such on this Earth.

And her blog is hers, and not of her party. Did you get that, finally? Naaah, won't be showing just because I don't feel like it (you didn't convince me, because of course I never sad that, and it has no relevance to the topic of this discussion).

I agree it's too much for me also. But on the other hand, it may be yet another metaphor - for that astounding capacity of our species to explore every single aspect of reality, no matter how grotesk, stupid, unnatural, violent and so on, it could be?

And yes, she still can write what she likes into her private blog. And no, that still does not make the blog the official position of the party. That is the way it is, with free, independent individuals, Dobbin. Believe it or not. But it was, I promise you. If you convince me, make me really want it (spend these 5 minutes of my time), I could even take you to the place. But no, I won't! Just because. (no, really, because it's gotten nothing to do with the topic of this discussion, does it?)

No, I'll try to explain again. They aren't concessions, but obvious acts of hostility and agression that have to cease before any serious talk of peace could begin. Just like attacks by militants. Militants consider attacks on Israel as their privilege due to historic origins of conflict. Isreal sees construction of settlements as theirs. If you identify one, but not the other, as a "concessions", you're taking sides. The path of peace lies in explaining and persuading both parties to abandon all forms of agression, not apologising any one. Taking sides and double vision is only contributing to mistrust and continuation of conflict. They are almost universally recognised as such. But in the final analysis, everything is "shaky" in this world, if that's what you mean. The question is where one wants to draw the line.

First of all, thank you for a thoughtful post. I'll certainly consider satisfying your interest perhaps even in a positive light, if only you would kindly oblige us (myself and other potential readers of this thread) by opening another topic with the appropriate title and in the appropriate section of these forums. Thank you. To MB: Well you haven't given much substance to respond to really, you see, words like "fart" or "prattle", powerful as they can be in reinforcing your own conviction in your own righteousness, hardly convey any useful meaning to other participants in the discussion. We don't need much persuasion in that the mentioned faction until recently did not show significant interest in peace negotiations, my point however has been all along that the other side, in the light of its persistent agressive policies cannot qualify as an angel of peace either. And in the reality of two (or more) hostile parties involved in ongoing hostilities toward each other, the best hope for peace would be for outsiders to avoid taking sides and cheering for any one party, instead making deescalation the priority. Deescalation means reduction in impact and eventual cessation of all major hostilities. And of course, it simply isn't possible (as an obvious logical self contradiction), if one type of hostility, agression is considered anaphema and taboo to be sanctioned and terminated on the spot, while another - an acceptable and even useful trading instrument. Without understanding that quite simple equation, I'm afraid all further "peaceful" efforts in the aforementioned direction would be destined for no less spectacular failures than they have experienced so far. I think I already explained this though, and I think I did it more than once. So, barring any novel arguments, I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to spare any more repetitions.

Wow, wow and wow! Believe it or not (tough as it could be, I know) an independent individual can actually have, and express, an opinion outside of their job. As well as any official contributions they make in their appointed roles. And of course, a responsible participant in a discussion would not attempt to substitute one for another. No, I did, and I dare you to find it, if you can; big serious hint: right here, in this very thread. Though I now see that I shouldn't have, because it has nothing to do with the discussion, and only plays into your (pretty thin, by now) hopes of discovering something / anything you could label as ideological taboo, and thus discount the arguments and facts you have no rational response to, whatsoever.

Wow. Do you really believe that an individual cannot have their own opinion, which they can also express in public, other than that their job would dictate? Or just pretending it to hang onto yet another obviously wrong, undefendable statement? The arguments are really running thin here, have you noticed that? On the other hand, there isn't really much that can be done in this situations, facts stacked so obviously against your position. Short of admitting it, and maybe making some changes, but that would be such a long call! I did thought I shouldn't have bothered to, as very obviously the question has nothing to do with the discussion. You're out of all meaningful arguments now, and just desperately looking for a way to brand your opponent with an ideological stamp that would also (in your view) discredit their arguments, and any inconvenient facts, that is your strategy now, correct, Dobbin?