myata

That sure is one good reason to go to them and kill them first.

Indeed I find much reason to have a good laugh about. In a few decades, the planet (and the near space) covered in a network of missile launch platforms, in triple (or more) numbers and variants. That's progress, that's how we'll be spending our limited resources in the 21 century.

War doesn't have to be. I thougt it ended with the collapse of Soviet empire thouugh. Differences may (and certainly will) remain but it would do us all a lot of good if we finally learned to resolve them without resorting to a threat of annihilation (whether mutual or not). The alternative of having to construct yet another level of offense / defence barricades over what already exists on this poor planet, is truly mad and suicidal. The fact that it comes from the only player who had a window of opportunity to turn this page, is really disappointing.

Well, nobody really appointed you (us) to set freedom and happiness around the world. It goes like this: I see injustice; I despise injustice; I barge in without any clue as to why injustice is going on; and what can be done about it; I screw up things more, so more injustice is done; and the cycle closes. Democracy, rights, etc did not come as a revelation; the path from medieval life with no rights, to current concept of some rights, took several centuries; it'll take time and goodwill to shorten the way for others; mind you that even after that people may end up with different understanding of rights and wrongs than ours; but most certainly imposing morality, culture, way of life on others by force and violence is counter productive and is an offence to the whole glorious idea of freedom. Now does it mean, indifference? Not necessarily. I think that on the international stage, instead of miriad of illusory "rights" that many don't understand, and some don't even agree with (such as freedom of press; electoral democracy; some forms of gender equality, etc), we may do a lot better talking of very few basic and really fundamental Rights; such as Right to life; and Right to personal freedom. The Rights that virtually any society that works in a normal stable fashion, understands and upholds. China upholds Righs to life and freedom; people aren't being arbitrarily thrown in jail or killed; but it doesn't support pluralistic electoral democracy with unlimited freedom of press. Once this fundamental, truly universal understanding of what is right, is achieved, it'll be lot easier to deal with thugs who'd go around ignoring them. Not to reeducate and enlighten in pluralistic democracy and such; only to ensure restoration and observance of fundamental Rights. From that point of view, there's no need to invade, fight counter insurgency, prop friendlies, pump billions to keep friendlies happy and well oiled. Nothing of that is necessary. The only thing that should be made clear, directly to the leaders of thugs is this: ignoring fundamental Rights will hurt. Directly and personally. And the hurt will last every single minute until fundamental Rights are restored. Following which moment, everybody is free to develop in their own way and fashion (and times). Help, information, exchange can be provided. Interference, imposition of foreign values, a thing of the past. Could it be a worthy model to try some day, for a change?

They don't have any (unless you can show otherwise) that would protect the country's territory. US shield is intended to protect the entire territory. Which is a huge difference from the AMD point of view. Finally, has anybody noticed that the Cold war was, supposedly, over? Why risk initiating a new one?

Once (and if) the technology reaches a point of usability there's no chance in a hell that some administration won't try to install it in massive numbers, capable of interfering with the AMD doctrine. Of course, the rest of the world (China, Russia) won't sleep quietly knowing that Americans carry the ultimate argument, without having to worry about being on the receiving end. Here you go, the recepy for the new massive arms race (till new balance is reached). What it'll be? More nukes? More sophisticated means of delivery? Weaponization of space? Only god knows (if they still care).

Yeigh, yeigh it always starts on that good generous education enlightenment note. Always. Bombs, tanks etc come next. Why could't goodness generousity and enlightenment do without brute force? Was it really the case before the invasion? If so, I'd like to see some proof, rather than blood raising propaganda. Whatever Taleban were/are known guilty of, mass killing and / or dying of population isn't seem to be what they're accused of. Try to understand this: everybody does not have to be just like us. After we waken up from some of the worst nightmares humans leaved through in the entire history. There are and will be people who live differently; behave differently; dress differently; have different understanding of norm of living and morality; all this is not still the reason to barge into their lands and change them so that they'll be just like us. There, you're making it sound like "interfere" and "help" are the same thing. They aren't. Help is mutual, interference is one sided. I.e in the eyes of the beholder. G.W.Bush can call somebody "evil axis" one day, and voila, they need "help". Next day they poke out a nuke from their pocket, and they aren't in the need of help (i.e. "liberation" help) anymore. That's the permanent problem with your argument. You can't go about invading and interfering based on your understanding of what's good for them (and surely, what's good for them should be good for us too, that goes without saying?). I wouldn't be so sure which one is better (not that I necessarily partake in one): indifference; or well intended but misguded "help". If "help" involves military power. That should instantly set the alarm bells. To think of it: how many of the worst dictators did what they did, consciously and intentionally because of want to do pure evil (as opposed to the ultimate good of their people)?

I'd like, again, to highlight the important differences between the events of WWII and Iraq/Afghanistan now. #1 Unlike states of the Axis that started continental war and totally bankrupted their ideologies in it, Afghanistan and Iraq were functioning reasonably well (by their terms and measures) at the time of invasions. To replace ideology by force, even by a democracy, is not at all the same as to try to introduce it into a society where no ideology exists (due to effects of war). #2 As has been pointed out, most states of Axis, at least in Europe, already had earlier experiences with democracy, sometimes for decades. It'll be incorrect to say that democracy was introduced or created in those societies. Unlike what's been done in Iraq, etc. #3 Societies aren't all the same. Some would bend and accept elements of what's being imposed on them quicker and easier than others. Generally, the idea that somebody can come in and redesign others by force, no matter under which name and for what reason is sheer idealism, not to mention a recepy for costly and painful long term problems. This is the same kind of business as christianization of "savages" in the Middle Ages, colonizations of industrial age, and idelogical conquests of the last century. I've no idea why we need or want to be a part of this hopeless enterprise.

Did you have a point to make?

Oh yes, our newest and most glorious democracy of Iraq. The one that's shining so bright, that about 150,000 US troops (not counting minor others) are visiting (peacefully, of course) no doubt to be educated on the latest in the democratic theory. My bad.

We keep hearing this "slap" theory (including home printed brochures I'm regularly getting from my Conservative MP), but the problems is, it's really vague on facts. So we'll leave it at that (ie. as a theory) till facts are provided. And facts (of a different kind) were provided: Canada is second highest, among developed nations, by incarceration rate. And also one of the highest by crime. US is highest on both. So, the putting more people in jails per se won't solve any problems. Addressing crime as complex social issue, would. But that's not how Harpers' Conservatives see it. Gun control - non issue. Social measures, not to be seen anywhere. Investing into national programs, strategies to fight organized crime? Whoever heard of that? What's left? "Slap on the wrist", "Get tough" bandwagon.

Getting anything off the streets first requires understanding the problem. Preventing yound kids from getting recruited into gangs would do lot more (and cost much less), than sending them to jail (and keeping, in the future). That would ask for long persistent work though, not a "bang on" slogan, something Harper crowd seems to be only interested in.

No, it's relevant because while bizzare crackpots will always be with us, the results of their acts can be linked very closely to their chance of getting more or more powerful guns. As any number of similar incidents will demonstrate. This time it's a knife. Next, it could be a semi. Or a bunch of them. One can't control people going crack, it just happens. One can control access to guns. But in some minds the two just aren't connected.

It is true, though, as already discussed in another thread. Japan's case is completely different, the country was bankrupt both morally and "physically" by suicidal policy of its elite. It was pretty much a clean slate. Nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan. In any case, "installing democracy by force" is quite obviously, an oxymoron. Strange that so few seem to have noticed.

Wikipedia: Gun ownership rates Navigate lower in the page for "List of countries by firearm-related death rate ". Note that all countries with high gun ownership rate (e.g Switzerland) also have higher gun death rates (homicides and suicides). To dispell popular myth propagated by gun lobby. The exception of Canada (average ownership rate, higher homicide rate) can probably be explained by illegal guns flowing from south. Ie. the actual, "real terms" gun ownership rate, including illegal guns in Canada would be higher than that indicated in the table. Bringing it on par with other high ownership countries (Finland, Switzerland, ~0.6-0.8 / 100,000) but nowhere as high as the all time leader down south (3.7 / 100,000). Now it would be interesting to examine those stats that you mentioned. I suggest to continue this discussion in the "Crime" thread though, as it isn't directly related to this topic.

Harper's approach to crime is purely ideological, and driven by the strategy to scare voters into voting for him. Overall crime stats are showing continuing downward trend. There're specific pockets of problems, mostly gang and guns related, that will require specific ongoing persistent efforts to control. Instead we're offered blanket "get tough" methods. To remind, from an earlier tread related to this topic, this country is already very high (if not second highest, among the developed countries) by its rate of incarceration. Combined with higher crime rate, than most. And yes, the US is highest on both, incarceration, and crime. See the trend? Not Harper. Talk about gun control - it falls on deaf ears. Addressing social causes, no particular interest. Get tough cuts it. Simple, easy to understand for certain audience. Will it work? As likely as it did down south. Will it help them get reelected? They must certainly believe so.

From today's Star: Children killed in Afghanistan. Another sited deteriorating security situation. Each story like this negates the effect of x million $$ sunk into this desperate project. Which is desperate in the sense that it has very little chance of success: if we're extra careful about any harm to the local population, our people will be exposed to more danger, and we'll suffer higher casualties. If we go on imposing our own "rules of engangment" on the local people, it'll give them all the more reason to view us as invaders, and resist. No win, all lose. Military interventions can't create free democracies.

Captured carbon won't be released into the atmosphere and therefore should not be taxed. It's not a form of tax evasion, but the very response the tax was intended to produce. Government can provide incentives for that, because it (presumably, expressing the will of voters) wants the results. In the same way as government may sponsor some development projects or social programs. Accounting (and importantly, verification) could be a serious issue.

This is true. Dion will look so very silly should he step back now. I can see however how he could drag on should byelections turn the wrong way. He'll have nothing to gain by going to the polls, but everything to loose. The stalemate may continue till Liberals devise some way to dump him, and elect a new leader. That'll have to be after the election, whenever it'll happen to fall.

And that makes a huge deal of difference, for sure. But wait, here's something what actually does, something that you previously used to address, sarcastically. Imagine if the guy, before going crack was legally entitled to accumulating a bunch of powerful guns. Imagine some passengers took out a few of their own. How would the wishful thinking play out in this case, in the confined space full of panic stricken people? Your (wishful) guess. That's the problem with the ideological folks like Harper, Bush and such. They just can't (i.e won't) connect two obvous truths together. Some people will always go nuts and some people will always turn to violence. The more chance they'd have their hands on more powerful guns, the greater (in the destructive sense) will be the outcome. 2+2. Confirmed by all kind of statistics (places with higher gun ownership also have higher gun death and crime rates). But not to Harper/Bush. Talk to them about gun control, and they aren't interested. Plain and simple. Restriction of freedom. I.e. one of the freedoms they actually care about. Talk about longer sentences and they're all in! As if it would make any difference to the crackpot in question (as well as hundreds of other crackpots), whether he'll be sent in for 27 years, as opposed to 22.5. Or, even fried alive (just wait for a statistical coincidence of a few episodes like this in a short time frame, and you may yet see Harper's folks bringing out this all time favourite from their crime control arsenal). Who cares that it goes against all logic, and experience. All that matters to these folks is their unquestionnable beliefs. A second before you go crack you're a respected owner and entitled to fill your caserne to your hearts desire. You go crack, and they'll make a serious example of you, for everybody to take in and remember. What, to not own guns? No, that's sacred! Not to go nuts. Here, legislated, and the problem's all solved. Who cares about those numbers, one'd have to tear one's bum away from TV to read and understand them, anyways.

There're three categories of knowledge: 1. I know 2. I don't know and aware of it 3. I don't know and proud of it Pick one.

It's interesting also to point out this paradox: many a conservative government, those that were supposed to be prudent fiscal managers, etc, raked high and record high deficits (Mulroney; Reagan; Bush; Harris in Ontario; will have to wait till end of year for this government's record); whilst it was left up to their left (or at least, "lefter" so to say) opponents to clean up the mess they've created. This particularly applies to Bush/Harper style neo-conservative governments that push for costly ideology driven policies (war; punitive only crime policies), and less social involvment (less social programs, lower taxes) all at the same time. Whatever result these strategies may produce, in most likelihood, it won't be the clean balance sheet. More likely, the climate of fear and paranoia, in which environment only they're likely to survive.

It's a Polichinel's secret that the real objective of this program is to develop technology to ensure US's nuclear dominance in the the era when emerging powers like China and India will come into prime. In their exalted minds, world designers a la Chaney, etc must have been dreaming of humanity's new gold age under America's thermonuclear axe, free of worries of mutual destruction. That's at the time when nuclear arsenals already capable of destroying all life 100 times over.

Yes there will always be problems when thinking with "people's" brains (rather than owr own). Guaranteed.

Adding a deficit to its list of "achievements" would be certainly a death knoll for Harpers' government. Maybe that's one of the reasons they urgently added another 3B into their spending plans (for Ontario infrastructure). Perhaprs, counting on an election before the results of their "prudent fiscal management" would come out? P.S. It's not like I'm opposed to that spending. It's the timing of it that looks highly suspicious. Just like Martin's goodies in 2006. Much good it did to him.