myata

Speaking of which. Canada gave CPC a minority mandate; not a majority one, to say it again. Meaning that it expects government policies to be coordinated and supported by the opposition. If anything, the economic situation has made the need for non-partisan, efficient and practical coordination in the Parliament more pressing than ever. PM himself said to that extent multiple times. It appears however that the talk and the walk are two different beasts. Forget the cooperation talk, in the act its the same old very well known from the previous incarnation of the same government "my way or no way" Harper. So, are they really interested in guiding the country through these challenging times, in cooperation with the other parties? Or, as before, they'll be looking for every chance, trick and gimmick to fulfill their majority wet dream? We'll know very soon. Either they'll relent and compromise - which would tell us that even in these critical times, Harper finds the time and intellectual capacity for his hallmark little nasty jabs and strategems. Or, they'll press on, despite common sense, and the mandate given by Canada, and in that case, they need to be kicked out asap, before things have gotten completely out of control. Hopefully, it could result in a meaningful action on the economy, social development, the enviroment, and, if we press it, electoral reform, something that majority of us who voted, support and want to see happen.

Harper's folks are simply showing that they just aren't going to change their ways, and will try to shove their agenda (and their little nasty jabs, like removing the funding for political parties) minority/majority/crisis/ no crisis/ no matter what. This is simply the way these folks are, and it should be pretty obvious to everybody by now. In my view, broad left center coalition is the only way forward in this stalemate situation. I care little about how it comes about and would certainly cooperate with BQ if it'd help to move things forward. Looks like coalition scenario is being worked upon already: CTV: Chretien and Broadbent to work on coalition.

Right. Tossing a cluster bomb on the other hand, is so very different... i.e unquestionnably civilized...... and humane.

No, you still aren't getting it. See, condemnations and accusations, they best work selectively. I.e to "our", good people - forgiveness and forgetfulness (for past or even present - take Georgia's recent little freedom adventure; or Iraq; or Lebanon; and so on and on and on), how would one say it, without hurting feelings? To "them": strong and relentless freedom loving condemnation. For example: most certainly, Russia can and should be strongly condemned for mistreating Jews 100 years back; but saying a word is about Israel's mistreatment of Arabs here and now is a big no-no. See, a "democracy" (however we choose to define it) simply cannot do wrong.

President Karzai, in the prime of his sovereignty is calling upon the international community to set a timeline for an end to a war with Taleban: (Karzai: BBC story). Voila. Sovereign president... is calling on UN... to stop a war ... in his own country. Not exactly what we've been hearing about this war from the government (or even on this board). That Afghan government is in full control of their destiny... what foreign troops will do whatever they (i.e Afghan government) wish... what they only stay there (and do what they do) because the Afghan government is begging them to... What else can be said? How much more "sovereign" these new democracies need to be?

OMG. Is it really so hard to get? Here, can't be made any simplier: there are our people (us inlcuded) and t-h-e-m (baddies, axes of evil, savages, lacking civilization, suckers and so on). Our people can do no wrong (they are good, so they can't - because they can't - never do any wrong - correct?). Even in the rare cases (speaking relatively and abstractly) when they may actually appear to be doing something that would otherwise appear to be wrong (like attacking civilian populations, ethnic cleansing, unprovoked invasions, granting possessions of some to others, and so on and on and on), this is only because it's done for a REASON. The all overcompassing goodness humane reason that may include ... whatever. Or, pretty much anything. And that is of course, oh so different (obviously different; absolutely different, different without comparison and by definition) from when them baddies do the same or very similar thing. Because they do it because they like it. Because their evil nature rejoices in the evil that they do. Because they can't do anything else. This is obviously the reason why we were chosen as the source of good and goodness in this world and them - our eternal nemeses. Now, is it finally obvious to everybody yet?

It is really as easy as pi.. on two cents to distract certain folks from a real problem (invasion and forced converion of far away people) by sending them on a hatred trail. Old as a mummy (probabtly older still) and still works. Always.

Why even bother? When they start talking that way, you know exactly what it's all about: foot in the mouth, and brain pristinely void of any trace of a rational argument.

Individual freedom only means the right to be safe from arbitrary deprivation of freedom. By far most societies allow their citizens to be free, unless under prosecution, or if partaking in an activity which is not tolerated by the society. And yes, there were well known mass violations of this basic right, like: Soviet Union, gulags; genocidal policies of Nazis; cultural revolution in China; terror of Chmer Rouge; genocide in Rwanda. Which makes it even more important to recognize these few basic and fundamental rights as truly universal, to make any mass violation immediately obvious, rather than being loss in the sea of uncounted other abstract "rights".

If we here, in the rich and morally, etc superior West, were interested indeed in improving the condition in many of underdeveloped and failing places on this Earth, we would be doing lot less of sporadic democratic rebuilding aka shoving our ways of life down the unlucky recipient's throat, but instead, negotiated in good faith, a few really fundamental, undeniable human rights. I'm speaking not of democracy, freedom of press, political freedoms and/or unrestricted market capitalism - these are inventions, great and faboulous as they are, of our path of progress; not even vaccination and female literacy - highly desirable as they are, they are the goals, benchmarks for societies that voluntarily accepted that path - not something we'd call "rights", then use as a ticket to invade and "liberate" people half world away. What's meant here is 1) the right to life; and 2) the right to individual freedom. People everywhere, virtually any place on Earth, can understand that. Because virtually anywhere on Earth, these rights are already understood and respected. Yes, including Taleban. And now, having attained an honest genuine understanding of what constitutes real rights (as opposed to our Western "rights" used synonimously with "our superiour way of life" and "the justification to invade and educate others"), one could then turn to negotiating certain extensions to these rights, such as e.g. granting of refuge (if somebody is condemned to lose life, and there's a place that would take them in, they would be allowed to go). Again, I'm stressing "negotiate" i.e. voluntary and willing transaction, not something forced and/or imposed by hook or by crook. And most certainly, something that works both ways. Finally, having developed these foremost objectives, one could invest resources and efforts saved on all useless and destructive "liberation" operations into 3) a consistent, reliable mechanism to deal with abuses of basic rights in those selected places where no stable government exists, i.e "failed states". A strategy, that is not an occupation and "rebuilding", but rather assertained capability (backed up with resources, human and material, unwavering committment by world community) to establish and protect safe zones for civilan population, and prevent abuses of human rights by prompt and forceful action. I wonder if international system based on 1), 2) and 3) could be (by far) less expensive, and achieve much more practical result (i.e in saved human life), then all our invasional/liberational efforts so far?

Then the "stick" model is going to stay with us (and our kids, and theirs etc) for a long time to come. There'd always be a reason and a "just" cause to use it, by somebody who just happen to have the biggest muscle of the day. So it was since the time of faraohs and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Well said. And in that particular place they solved the problem (of unsolicited advise, argument, etc) in that particular way. Which is fully in their right. There's any number of other forums that don't do that, and most certainly and fully in line with the tradition and law of free speech one's always entitled to start a new one. Nobody seem to be having any problem with that save this quite peculiar breed of people who feel the call, urge, etc) to teach and preach to others what they should and should not be doing.

Aren't there more meaningful moral topics left anymore? I went to rabble to piss off some lefties and was kicked out in a flash. Sniff. No justice in the world. The sky is falling. Apocalypse, now. Sniff.

Sigh... for the amptieth time, there cannot not be a "free election" in a society that does not know what a free election is. And there definitely cannot be one in a country that is occupied by foreign troops. Troops which are in an active combat operation in a civil war. OK, what part of 18 billion spent so far went to non military projects? I recall numbers like 10% (which would make my statement factually correct; as well as anything less than at least 50% - in the common sense meaning), but I'd appreciate more up to date information. And yet again, why have you decided that they need you (i.e us) to speak for them, fight for them, decide things for them (e.g to negotiate; or not). Is it because they're like children? Couldn't take care of themselves? Need gentle and wise guiding hand? From enlightened liberators? No, only a law based, justice based statement. You can't take action and punish just anybody. Only authorised people can and on a sanction from a court. The court that is independent and impartial, and presumes innocence until crime is proven. Yet, as you posted it here, and it says nothing about the regime change. It speaks nothing about crimes against humanity, which can be only justification, no not for an invasion, regime change and rebuilding, but for a strong and determined action to halt the abuse. And if you'll look the same (in some aspects and not through the fault of yours), how would one be able to tell the difference? The surest way to come on the top of morality blah would be by actually following our own cermons of peace and brotherhood, i.e. by not showing up into other peoples lands armed to the teeth. Sometime maybe we could try that - for a change, as the last option.

Without commending Rabble, which I haven't visited in years, the obvious problem with Mr.C and the rest that the folks simply cannot honestly grasp that everything (and everybody) everywhere do not have to be identically the same. You don't like their rules - you don't go there. Their forum - their rules. And you clicked the button accepting the rules. Appears simple enough. But apparently, not for everybody. What else? Who's to blame? At least you haven't signed that time share contract (or have you)?

OMG. That time around you guys left your tanks aircraft and other highly explosive gear behind. Perhaps that could explain at least some of the difference? Who's they? And haven't "they" (in a different interpretation) also asked for Soviet help etc in the times of old? Anyways, I don't want to go there - again. Enough is to say that "they" can ask for anything, but we should not be fighting a proxy war on their behalf. If by "they" you mean a bunch of people who can't gather enough influence in the country through traditional means, could not fully trust their ,000,000 army + police either, then I'm with you. Still doesn't mean that we should be propping "them" with our guns though. OK; why does "assistance" almost invariably translate as "bombing"? Just a question to think about.. If millions consent to being governed, and there's no confirmed crime against humanity - yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Look around. There isn't anybody around who could do any better. Which rule? Rules are jumping around as a crazy elephant. The rule, "holy democracy", means nothing. It's just a token to stretch to the case, whenever we have, no, need, no, want to "go". In all honesty (ignoring the diplomatic doubletalk which I have no desire to go into), US were justified, and we rightfully given the mandate, to go after those responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Which is not the same, by far and huge margin, as the mandate to "regime change" or "rebuilding". Try to understand that, if you don't see it honestly, or stop repeating nonsense if you do. As far as it gets, and further still. Force should not be used as a mean of "progress", period. Isn't that the actual, real meaning of being "peaceful"? That's the only way of telling, anyways. Anybody could claim being "peaceful" and "humanistic" based on their own private definitions of "peace" (not at odds at all with sometimes somewhat forceful "rebuilding") and humanity (not to be confused with "garbage" Taleban). Wouldn't that make us (who kicked their ass and forced them to conform) look like them (of old) though? But I see. What is done doesn't matter as much, as by who, correct?

You're there (complete with tanks, artillery and airforce). What other proof do you need? No, it's you guys who need to proove that it's Afgans themselves chose democracy, etc, yada. And to prove that you need no more and no less than simply get out - and see what kind of country they'll build or rebuild, for themselves. The same exact place where they existed before we began our glorioius effort of rebuilding them. People will live where and how they can, according to their traditions and practices, and change those tradtions when and in the ways they want and can. Outside world can and should guarantee (we however always fail to do that, engaging ourselves on long term democracy quests instead) that crimes against humanity aren't tolerated. And that's as far as it should go. Nobody here is clean enough to be a lecturer how things should be with others; our very own history of residential schools for one example, speaks as much. Well, people are. And for themselves. Hard to get, I understand, when you know exactly what they should or shouldn't be doing. Like little robots in some grand plan. Except you got it all wrong. Individuals can do anything - with themselves, including believing in outrageous things, hurting themselves, and so on. Yeah, it'd be so much better if everybody only thought the right thoughts, took their garbage out on the same day and minute, bought the right amount of stuff (not too much and not too little) and so on. The only problem with that is that's not very likely to happen. Mind control could help, but it's a bit late in coming. Short of that, we are all left to our often less than perfect individual devices. I can't see why it should be any different with people's societies? Really do we that one universal wise and superhumanistic guru who thinks nothing for themselves and only cares about well being of others? Next time you'll see one, make sure to introduce them.. Or was it Mr G.B. or T.B.? Then how did it happen that the cost of their benevolence has come about as high as Saddam himself could have worked hard to achieve, if given free hand and much of freedom loving assistance? OK No, it wasn't like that at all, and we've discussed it at length, and allegations against Taleban haven't been proven in any court of justice, and nobody can simply "vote" to "kick out". The system we have now doesn't come close to justice and even then it's ignored by whoever it's not convenient to (e.g Iraq). Anyways, it's a different topic. The general problem with that point of view is that many people doing same thing isn't necessarily the sign of them doing the right thing. On very contrary, very often (find any number of examples to that) people come together in doing wrong thing because it's easier to justify that way.

+1 (- "primitive, dangerous" and other derogatory terms that really add nothing to the equation). But what we say is not what we do. Just take a look back at the history of the region over last century, and you'll see continous relenless domination, bugging and pestering of these people by who? Correct. So, until we actually and for real leave them alone, there's really no way to tell eternal incarnate evilness from natural trait of human nature to resist domination (we can have another, philosophical discussion about why such trait had come into existence). The resistance that does not always take morally justifiable forms, but is nonetheless as firmly rooted in the fundamentals of social nature, as the the fact that hitting a brick wall hurts - in physical.

Bull's eye; certainly it's up to us (meaning certain folks in this forum, as well as those who think alike, including those of them who once in a while make it high enough to put these ideas into practice) to judge which way life is worthy of existing, and which one needs to be changed. Nothing new there, really. The sad thing is not that such people still exist. It's that in the uncounted years of history we, as a society, still haven't learned that spreading ideas, even the best ones, by force and fire, is not the thing to do. And what would it take to learn? I don't know.

No, but it's you, silly! You've got nothing more to say and that's exactly why you resourt to standard well worn off and dusted namecalling (Taleban, etc) and no less standard and worn off boogie threats (Al Quaeda, etc). I know it may take awhile to sink in - but take you time.

OK, standard cliche #1 (normally applied when at an absolute and irrevocable loss of any inteligent, rational argument). Move on.

Their independence? Their way of life??

Truly. Our ancestor of old hacked with a club and a stone ax. We - with those wondrous F-whatever. And mind you, all to the same noble end - although the ancestor may not have yet invented the word - i.e to grab more of the stuff from someone else. What an amazing progress! What a great foundation to preach and instruct others on the true ways of goodness.

What can be said? If one likes to establish something somewhere without local peoples' concent, they're guaranteed to face the music at some point of their career. Mind you: not because I think that it's a "good reason", but because it's a fact of human nature: people don't like to be dominated, and don't easily forgive it. For the record: I condemn all attacks. BTW, here's the most recent example: BBC: US attack in Syria And that point is obviously wrong. Just test it among a group of people. What's good for me, is good for ... correct? People are different, and societies are too. There's no one obvious standard or ideal for everybody to follow. Being different does not necessarily mean being the source of evil and a target for subjugation and domination.

Well, yes, nobody is fully innocent here. But for every incident of civilian death, attack, etc on our "proper" soil, there would probably be orders of magnitude that caused by our direct domination or indirect interference in their affairs and in their land. Starting with open colonial subjugation in the early 1900, to establishment and support of Israel, to machinations and manipulations of governments, to supplying arms to friendly regimes in the later years. Not to forget force fed democratizations of the most recent times. So if one wants to forget or ignore, all the underlying root causes, and only notice the outrageous acts of some delirious individuals, they themselves would be deliriously blind, and little can be added to that. Instead we're sending them proxy governments backed by our F-16s. And yes they can practice their faith here, because it's our way. Their ways can be different. Just as said: we want everybody to be like us; and if they aren't, we get angry. Childish reaction really, but it's very sad that with all our technological and political sophistication we just wouldn't (could not?) grow up. BTW we also need them to work in our mills and pay our pensions. Aging population.