myata

While the US is firmly behind Israel's back, there wouldn't be much possibility of a lasting peace. Settlement building will continue (as it did - in good, i.e peace accord, times; and in the bad ones; always), Palestinians will get p.. off and blow more stuff. The spiral twists. Ongoing foreign interference, in the form of supporting one side in the conflict, feeds it and it continues. Until we learn to walk the peaceful freedom democracy talk, there won't be much hope.

Eliminating human rights legislation may or may not have anything to do with eliminating these special commissions to enforce such legislation. If there's a substance to the first claim, we should indeed have a very loud discussion about it, as rights became one of the cornerstone principles of our society and we shouldn't allow to change that unless we know what and why, we're doing. Regarding the role of commissions, as a matter of principle, I dont' see any benefit in a parallel pseudo justice system. The only caveat is accessability. Justice has grown extremely slow, and very expensive in Canada, and making defence of one's basic rights, as defined in the Constitution, subject to ability to pay, and wait, would be inacceptable. I'm not sure if developing sideways justice streams for specific sets of issues is the right strategy in the long term (I'd prefer investing into universal accessability, at least for some, e.g. Charter-related issues), but I'm not familiar with the situation well enough to comment whether there's in fact a viable alternative right now.

That is exactly the point, where I would agree with the de... Harper himself. If we elect people who'd ditch human rights legislation, even Constitution (if it was theoretically possible) we probably don't deserve those rights in the first place. It should be a matter for public debate, the courts, and the law, not pseudo legal entities with unknown agendas and less than clearly defined rules.

Now we are back into the murky waters of determining the universal morality. E.g. over time, till quite recent, in historical terms, times, "classes" have been developed to observe the play of unholy forces behind anything that negatively affects 'me". And prosecuting the alleged perpetrators of evil, the conducts of unholy forces, accordingly. Countless numbers of such examples, overt time, of course. But right now, at this very glorious point in our history, we happen to be found on the very top, pinnacle of the moral pyramid, unlike (or should it be, just like?) those less fortunate times. Then, again, which courts and legislators? To the best of my knowledge, abortion is recognized a key right almost everywhere in the developed world. So their classes must be different from yours, where "human existence" would impose limits on woman's right to control her body? Which "class" is right, then? Their or mine? Should I make them comply with my definition of classes, because I know it to be the right one? Should we go to war for that cause? Indeed they are. Should your fingernails be a protected class too, for that reason? They are also a "class" of "human existence" after all. No comment on that as I'm not following. Noticing obvious logical flaws in an argument isn't a symptom of omniscience (I wish it were, at least in this case). Indeed, but only in the "moral" world, where parties struggle to force their views (morals, ways of life, etc) on each other. It certainly has the right to exist, and its existence is bound to unfold in the permanent struggle of parties trying make their view of the world dominant. Buyers beware.

Of course it's recognized (already!), as a "human existence", see above. In the same class as appendicitus, etc. That itself in no way implies that it should have the same logical attributes, i.e rights, morals, etc, as other "classes", such as e.g human beings proper to which / whom this discussion mostly pertains. A classic example of (forgot what its called) logical fallacy, I wear glasses, you too, so you must have red hair, just like me. Anyways. Not even remotely related, no not even a nice try. That position implies the kind of omniscience I'm not entirely comfortable with. I prefer to keep an open mind, even if just in case, why not? No arguments from me there. Of course, our high moral preachings and cermons to others, may appear somewhat diluted (not to say, trivial ?!) by practical results of our act.

And I'm glad that we agree that whatever kind of existence, it's not about relations between humans and therefore has no application to this topic; or even, as you rightfully noticed, human morality. No more that is, than amputation or removal of, i.e. ultimately, exercising control over some other part of a body that without doubt, also represents a class of "human existence" (well, it's related to humans, and it exists, if I understood the point correctly). We can also point out logical consequences of our act. No matter which side of the fence we find ourselves on. It's not like we can turn off the brain, or make it line up in the right, proper, correct direction. Even if somebody dearly liked us to.

No, not gonna rethink "power plus right" because it's got nothing to do with abortions. Whatsoever. There's only one indivudual in that latter case, and most certainly they are entitled to make decisions about their own body in the way they find appropriate, without any moral or otherwise, interventions from others. Certainly in full agreement with the point I was making (comment is only for the sake of completeness and clarity, there's really not even a remote logical connection of the two issues). See, a world where independent individuals recognize the right of others to exist and have their own way of life, can, theoretically at least, exist in a stable condition of peace (as long as individuals uphold the agreement and do not impose themselves on others). A world of moral ones, each with a deep sense of righteousness, entitlement, and desire to improve the others, on the other hand, is bound to be in a perpetual squabble. Just what we see. Really easy. There must be a math theorem to to that fact.

Not on my part. Somebody's inventing these fancy words - "liberation", "humanity", "nation building", as opposed to conquest, conversion, colonization, inferior race and ethnics, etc, of the past. Why do we want to use new, different words for, basically, the same old thing? Beats me. Perhaps, I can volonteer to propose a universal, eternal and absolute concept, that wouldn't ever need to change: "because I'm stronger and because I'm right" (no, I didn't invent it, no kudos please). Really, it has all that's necessary to unleash another (liberation, etc) war: 1) superiority in power (perceived, or real doesn't really matter); 2) never faultering conviction in one's given right to do so (ie. war). Yet, "power" + "right" does not necessarily equals to "war". That requires a severe deficit of the third element, don't really know or care to use any of the tired words, something that keeps individual, group, society, country, species, balanced in their abilities, and standing with respect to others and the world, without imposing themselves on everybody (and everything) around them.

No, I'm not blinded by anything, are you? The whole concept of ("just", "liberation", "democracy building", etc) war is built on two premises: 1) we're better; 2) because of #1, whatever we do, must be, and is, good. Remove the premise - that is of course, purely subjective: I'm right, because.. I am, I know; I'm not firing that rocket "deliberately" because I'm not, I know (while I know that "they" are), and so on, that kind of logic - and there's nothing left but plain old ugly, deadly and nasty, war. We go into other lands; we make wars on (self declared) presumption that we're right and we're doing good. What exactly is new there? How is it different from conquests, colonizations, conversions, and so on, of the not so glorious past?

"Deliberately" and "remorse" would certainly make all the difference, for those dead. And of course, we'll be the masters of interpretation, for both. We'll call firing a rocket, dropping a bomb into a building, a village "unfortunate". Say words of remorse. And voila - did you notice the change in the world? The sun is smiling. Birds sing. Liberty advances.

We had to come up with something, anything, after scores of civilians, with women and children, actually died in the recent airstrikes. If only to dispel doubts about who's being the good guy here. Anything is excused, and permitted, as long as you know that you're on the good side.

And he's done other, innovative, unprecedented things too: - unprecedentally in this country's history, introduced fixed election dates, to foster Transparency and Responsibility, which his predecessors ostensibly, neglected; - and unprecedentally broke them (making a precedent for others to follow? no, that would be against the law, the spirit if not the letter) - unprecedentally suspended the Parliament, when majority of elected MPs would have him kicked out for his nasty partisanship in the plain view of onsetting downturn. No, he's never at a loss to break new ground, bend rules, ignore laws, forget promises, create unholy allegiances, and so on, when it plays into his hands. And always the first one to call it on others, righteously and indignantly.

Of course, he's only hanging out there for the sake of us, poor and neglected, who'd have to go nowhere without his firm but gentle guiding hand. Like that last time when he's been so preoccupied with guiding us into his majority, that did not notice the minor issues with the economy (quelle triffle!). And he's doing it, people, despite a host of (occasionally, self inflicted) great obstacles, and challenges, like trampling, no overcoming his own, adopted for no less than holy transparency and responsibility, fixed election dates, or perogueing, whatever in December, when he thought that he had a spiritual majority, even though the actual count in the House told him otherwise. A true martir on the altar of holy Democracy. Perhaps her very spirit, incarnate.

No, I think he's finally decided to self-destruct. Harpers' way to exit, with bang and loud music. I never make political predictions, but I have this hunch the the elections may not be far away.

While our freedomloving bullsh.. is. Unlimited.

For once, I applaud the PM. I mean, the guy just wouldn't go without a bang! What ingenuity! And courage! Now, by all sings in the full recovery mode from the December's affair (when in a swift masterstroke, Mr Harper has accomplished that no PM has done before, ie. "prorogue" the Parliament on the occasion of his own little partisan tricks while the country was looking for leadership facing economic downturn), maybe he'll make another bold move, e.g. by actually introducing that gun registry (which in the view of any true social conservative is the root cause and primary source of all the problems in this country, along with leftie judges, and same sex marriage) bill in the Parliament? No? Why not? Let's go Stephen, let's go Stephen!

My assumptions are based entirely upon freedom hugging humanity loving cermons we hear in between (or, on occasion, while buzy, i.e. messy with) our liberating efforts. The moment we state the actual state of reality, i.e that we are trying to procure any kind of advantage by virtually any means available to us, I'll remove my objections (no, not to the strategy itself, which I still deem counter productive in the long run and big picture, but to the idea of humanism and enlightenment, exercised in that particular context).

Relatives will have more comfort because their loved ones died efficiently... even if in greater numbers... but for a good cause, that certainly should be a consolation? As we think, for them? I can't recall anything quite like Iraq war even in those tumultous times... then, didn't we all see the dawn of the new era, post Cold War, that was supposed to see cooperation, multilateralism, peace and rule of law.. when it plays into our hands. I'm not quite following. It's a common knowledge that bodicounts resulting from our liberating efforts by far (i.e. multiples and orders of magnitude) exceed meagre achievements by any terrorists. Why so? I'd like to know probably more than the great liberators themselves.

We'll have to take your word on that because you tried it both ways? A lot of it, if one'd only cared to take an honest look around. When was the last time you were "liberated", had your government selected, installed, supported, armed and kept afloat by foreign powers? I know, what's good for a goose, is a big no for the great democratic gander. Because it's the only logical, scientific way to establish causal relationship. Cause - effect. War on terror - glorious march of freedom and democracy on Earth. Or not. Short of taking somebody's word on it, like WMD in Iraq, or 45 minute attack, etc. Still we need some factual confirmation to these general statements. 50,000 foreign troops barely keeping stability in the country? Power grid down for months, if not years, in Baghdad? Taleban rising in Pakistan? You sure it all happended before War on Terror (and here, in this Universe)? All facts, including bodycounts as collateral damage of great liberation should be taken into account, if one wouldn't end up consuming loads of bullsh.. (like above, but by far not limited to it).

While being killed by a liberating missile attack, on the other hand, should feel entirely different? On a practical note though, it's not about consolotation and comfort, but fact of reality. Human nature. And nature and its laws can be ingnored only to the ignoramus's peril. (Hostile) act creates counter-act. Messing in other peoples affairs will cause resistance. Even liberating and educational messing. Want to reduce or elimintate resistance? Don't mess in other people's affairs. Even if you don't really like their way of life (you can have your own; which you can demonstrate for everybody to see, and those who like it, to try and maybe accept - of their own will, and in their own time); or, they happen to have oil; or both. I know, sounds doubtful and unlikely. But maybe after all the troubles, blowbacks, billions, and thousands, tens and hundreds, of lives, buried in the ground, worth giving a chance? As a last resort in that war, which by all indications, isn't really going anywhere? What exactly was true before War on Terror, can we be more specific? - daily attacks and loss of human life in Afghanistan? - tens of thousands dead, infrastructure in shambles, crime and daily attacks in Iraq? - taleban fighters within 60 miles of Pakistan's capital?

It's not entirely clear who's actually kicking whose butt there: BBC: spread of Taleban in Pakistan. But what's becoming increasingly obvious, is that the policy of "getting messy" and "kicking the butt" in the remote and unknown lands is counter productive and in the long run will create lot more problems that it solves (if any). Compare: we had a relatively minor case of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. Sure they caused an enormous tragedy in 9/11, but it's by far more an intelligence failure of the US, then indication of fighting power of Al Quaeda itself. Now we have near desperate situation in Afghanistan, hot potato of Iraq, and growing trouble in the nuclear Pakistan, on our hands. Who's saying that "war on terror" isn't bringing results?

Apparently, that "sense of justice" didn't (and doesn't) befit everybody.

I'm not sure societies (and conflicts between them) can be fully described in simple terms, like "ethnics", "religion" and so on. A lot goes into the way society works, collective psyche and such. E.g. if there's a perception of a great injustice done in the past, people would be much more likely to grow up with a feeling of being victimized. If they also happen to grow up in the atmosphere of despair and poverty, it'd be a natural catalyzer for the bent up anger. Popular anger and a just cause, a recepy for a major upheaval. Once the vortex is created, there's no simple resolution to it, the ripple has to run its course. As can be seen on examples much closer to home, in our own, European societies. Like Northern Ireland; very much the same type of conflict only on a much smaller scale; is taking centuries, many generations, and massive involvement of outside world to ease and maybe, eventually settle, maybe in the near, rather than more remote future. So, are there ways to solve the problem, now that the maelstrom has been created? I doubt that. Are there things that can be done to alleviate it, shorten its duration, severity and human impact? Most certainly. One of the first such things, complete agreement, is to bring up the truth. Try to make amends. Not for the sake of "morality", it's too late for that, but for a simple practical reason, to soften the bent up anger and frustration. The second is to work toward improving living conditions on the ground. In the longer perspective, start working on a fair (for, and from, both sides) and comprehensive settlement. I don't know, what is it, an illusion, or some deliberate strategy, to pretend (and attempt to convince others, by selective release of information, deliberate ignorance of facts of history, norm and principles of international law, etc) that something, anything positive may come out of selective half truths and severely limited in scope "negotiations" around trading people bits and pieces of their own land, while more of it is being taken on almost daily basis. This has never worked, and sooner or later, somebody will realize that. Till then, we may be destined to observe more of instability and violence and almost certainly, political double speak.

As it's becoming very obvious that the "elephant" approaches do not lead to peace, I believe it to be very important that the principles of peace: 1) addressing injustices of the past; 2) fair settlement; and 3) guarantees of security and assistance to attain prosperity; should all become a part of public discusion. If they become commonly recognized as the right direction to attain progress in the conflict, perhaps our politicians would have no choice but to follow.

I agree that both sides did not show themselves from their purely angelic side here, but unlike other more complicated cases, this conflict had a very clear cause and starting point. It isn't unlike other deep troubles created by blazingly arrogant colonizers knowing best what's good for the pygmys they raise and educate and graciously lead to become an accomplished part of humanity. It's ridiculous to even think that a lasting peace can be achieved without addressing this historic injustice. Of course, unless one happens to be from that glorious cohort of great freedom givers, who're so given to sawing laws, principles, and moral imperatives on others, themselves standing high above any such triffles, responding (perhaps) to none other but those divine calls from "above" (wherever it may actually be found).