myata

Of course, all the work Hans Blix's inspection team was doing in Iraq before the fact was proven, means nothing against Bush's administration's firm and unrefutable (by any rational means) belief that WMD existed. Isn't it that exactly this kind of "believers" that caused, and continue to cause, uncountable problems? It's against them that the firm and clear checks must be set in place, once and for all. No matter one's beliefs, fears, and paranoias, war is out question as a mean of consolation, period.

I never said (and it's in no way obvious conclusion) that "violating soverignty" is equivalent to a full blown aggressive war. Violating sovereignty in specific situation to check a crime against humanity may be justified. It becomes itself a crime if/when it crosses the exact and precise limits of a necessary action and becomes a full blown agression. Hope this answers all future attempts to confuse foreign aventures a la Iraq/Afghanistan/ Iran with peace keeping or international police actions. Because these recent events have clearly demonstrated that we aren't interested in having any justice mechanisms setting limits on our military actions abroad. After that we aren't any different from any of the agressive empires of old as without application of law and justice the only rule that remains is that of the might. That's the chief lesson everybody learned from Iraq; no matter what we say and declare, we'll do as we please.

Reports went in a number of news outlets, here's The Star story: Khadr's case. The judge required prosecution to deliver some documents to the defense, and refused to set the date for the trial, till the documents are provided. Let's see: first we set up a pseudo justice system that doesn't hold to any standards; then, when judge attempts to enforce even those inferior standards, he is dismissed. Does judicial independence mean anything in the world of secret military tribunals? The latest in the modern democratic justice, coutesy of Bush administration, and ready to go as democratic template for installation (perchance, with persuasion) around the world?

I see no connection; certain undertakings could make use our resources especially as we have more than others; would that make us the champions of peace in other folks eyes? After Iraq and Afghanistan? I seriously doubt that.

No problem. No intelligence or reasoning (or propaganda / hysteria / brainwashing) should be able to justify offensive agressive war thousands miles from own territory. We should have a law that says plain and clear that such actions are illegal and unlawful and anybody attempting them is liable to criminal prosecution. People judge us not by our preachings, but by actions. And after Iraq and Afghanistan I wonder if there's anybody left to take in seriously our ongoing cermons of peace and justice and democracy.

You only pointed out your own lack of comprehension. The rule applies each time a buddy's gotten an itch "to go", without exception for past privileges or medical conditions. Too much's at stake, to get it wrong. On a serious note, all states that pretend to be "developed" or "democratic" should make offensive agressive wars illegal and its initiators - criminals, by default. The record past WWII shows that regular checks in the system just aren't working to prevent unnecessary wars. The itch to write one's name into history is too great to resist, and there's uncounted number of ways to not inform, misinform, or brainwash the public.

I have a better suggestion; let's gather all those who spend so much creativity and taxpayers money, to make these wars happen, round them up, and send right there, in the hell of the fight; and make it a rule for all future generations of aspiring Napoleons and liberators of all kinds: yes, you can have your battles and your glory; as long as you're the first one in the assault line.

Most certainly, military efficiency is uber alles. And, what kind of society wants its people to quesion whether its bloody overseas adventure is justified? That could very well spell the end to them, overseas adventures, with military industrial complex along the way? Really, who wants that kind of outcome?

The lawful order may include going to another land and instruct locals in the art of democratic living, by force. This isn't much different (in the rationale, if not implementation) from what many well known (if not well remembered) apologists of "law and order" attempted to do in the past. The question is, what can an individual do, if they are required to follow this kind of orders? I think it's in the best interests of the society to allow them out. It's the best remedy against getting too far into following wrong orders, whether lawful or not. And one can hardly get much further away from truth, than by starting totally unnecessary destructive war in the name of some lofty ideal.

I think there should be a way for enlisted army members to not participate in objectionable armed confrontations. At least on some specific grounds. Like participating in totally unnecessary unprovoked agressions. Maybe it'll do something to discourage overseas aventures a la Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran. And in end, wonder if we ever get there, all wars other than defense of own land should be outlawed outright and anybody complicit in starting such war made a criminal under law.

And in that particular democracy, they just happen to call the shots?

Even better; certainly, there's no reason why the same superior conditions could not be recreated now, that native populations are in control of their destiny. And certainly, with these hugely superiour social structures we won't be depending on regular handouts from the hated "white man"?

The essense of the problem is that there are two, established and reasonably stable ways of life: traditional, with high infant mortality, short lifespan, dependency on elements, etc; and technological. What does not exist, and was never proven to be viable in any way, is a combination, or hybrid; of the two. As soon as we realize and admit it, most of the paradoxes will be solved. Really. If it's the traditional way of life that is sought, it's very fine, but it wouldn't be reasonable to expect to achieve the standard of livinig that isn't natural for that society; if the technology is desired, it goes without saying that the focus should be on education, reasonably modern social institutions, efficient workforce and economic reality; economic paradize cannot be created on a remote regularly flooded piece of land for a handful of people.

Land, medical supplies, houses etc, due to treaties; social assistance, child support and other social benefits - as citizens of this country. It's a really nice niche. But, as so often, the dream of manna falling free from the sky, forever, is much more of a problem, than any solution.

At issue is not that the problem doesn't exist but whether the approach, preferential treatment, is going to solve it, with the benefit to everybody. It's in the interest of the society to have all social groups represented in the government organizations; it is also essential that they operate with the appropriate standard of quality. I'm not sure that allocating workplaces based on ethnicity is going to result in net positive benefit. There're many ways to promote public sector jobs among different groups, but lowering standard for some shouldn't be one of them; compromising the standard of service for better appearence is not what most of us want to see; even less, promoting of ethnic discrimination, whether white or not. What is needed it's an efficient oversight / complaint mechanism, to ensure that nobody has been passed over unfailry; that jobs were properly advertised and fair criteria attached (unlike ridiculous stories I keep hearing from my PS friends, of jobs made specially for particular candidate). Other than that, it should be, pure and simple, you get what you brought to the table; this country isn't one big charity for the world, that'd pass around goodies for free courtesy of our taxpayers. Finally, I havent' seen those ads, but if they actually existed, they should be prime candidates to bring before those same Human Rights commissions; I can't find another word for it than ethnic discrimination.

The commission should have been named "unreasonable xenofobia" instead. Like that village in Quebec that adopted some stupid, special law for immigrants. There're laws and there're rights, and there's no need for any reasonable, or unreasonable "accommodations" beyond that.

The argument, on that side, is not logical. Or that of the reason. It's moral. And because morals are relative, they can be used to justify pretty much anything. Entire populations were erased from the face of this planet, in Holy Theory, and in practice, on the grounds that they exercised morally wrong beliefs and/or practices.

I read an article in the L'Actualite, by Israel's prominent writer; he said, and I 100% agree with it, that the secret of the lasting settlement is very simple and is known to everybody, i.e: 1) separate states, in the original borders (or mutually agreed variations thereof), 2) East Jerusalem as capital of Palestinian state; 3) compensation to displaced in exchange for no right of return. To which I would only add recognition of problems with unilateral creation of Israel and complicity of some Western powers in it; apology; and compensation. That neither Israel, nor her big buddy in Washington ever dare to pronounce the simple truth that is known to pretty much everybody, only shows that there's still a long painful way to go. Peace cannot be achieved without justice, and good will. Having the biggest muscle on the planet play into your court is probably the biggest obstacle to real lasting peace one could imagine.

Yeah I know, by their very nature they won't ever accept that somebody else may have full uncompromised right to their own body. Any attempt to use C-484 to restrict actual right to abrotion will come up against the Charter and is dead before it's even started (until we have it - the Charter). That's only expected and not in the least a surprise, no matter what tune Harper wants to play to the public. What is sad is that the Liberals, the party that actually brought the Charter in, are now failing to stand up for the principle. That's just too bad. I predict that they won't get anywhere (far), until they reestablish themselves as principled progressive alternative to Conservatives, ideally with a leader who is able to articulate their position, and stand up for it.

We (developed world) are only a small (less than 1/6 ie some 15%) of the world's population. And it (the world's population) is still growing, see world's fertility rate in your own reference. And in the meanwhile, it's developed world that is responsible for by far disproportionate role in consumption of the world's resources. I.e, given the current state of affairs, with only around 1 billion of first tier consumers, what would we do when in couple of generations, it's 4 ? With China, India and South America catching up to our levels of consumption? Will there be enough a) fertile soil aka food; fish and other livestock; c) fresh water; d) energy - to sustain everybody?

Wow, what a "compromise"! 5 years in prison for late term termination of pregnancy! Which medieval code is this one borrowed from? And surely, now, that all our crime problems are long in the past, we simply need this legislation to keep our prisons at capacity.. BTW care to share by what virtue did you divine what Canadians would think about that? And, if somebody so sure of that, why are they so shy to state it in a public debate? Surely not for the lack of public support? And certainly not out of reluctunce to demonstrate their true beliefs and values? But indeed, I much prefer this kind of statements, which won't beat around the bush, and make very clear the position and intent of its proponents, to the stealthy advances of Harpers' crowd, one little step at a time, which, to the shame of the official opposition, it doesn't only fail to expose, but also quietly plays into.

Because there're too many of us here already (if we won't change our ways in a dramatic spectacular fashion), and more are coming. See above. At the present rate of depletion of biosphere, there's at most two more generations to go; whereafter the choice would be to either move masses of people somewhere (where?) or have them lost in a mass cataclysms. There just won't be enough life left on the planet to sustain ever expanding hords of consumers out of all control. The limits will be set for us, and they are very simple: shortage of basic resources, such as food, water, fertile soil, energy.

I believe most developed countries have some restrictions on late term abortions, qualified by medical necessity, and overall a balance can be found between women's right to not go through an unwanted pregnancy, and (some part of) the public' unease about termination of late term (ie. near developed) human embrios. I don't see any serious desire in the public to bring the debate back, but should it come to it, that could be a reasonable middle ground position of compromise. The proposed bill does nothing of the sort though; it's some kind of a bone to the Conservatives's socially conservative wing. Why Liberals are playing into their goals, is simply beyond me.

Here's another alarm call illustrating the urgency of the problem: BBC: wildlife population plummeting around the world. One human generation = a quater to a third of animal populations down. Not hard to make the calculation; presuming the rate of decline keeps steady; if not, and contrary to the popular adage (not in my lifetime), we may see some quite nasty things (like serious food shortages) happening much sooner.

Sure, all good questions, and I'm not in any way implying that space exploration / research programs should be stopped. However when speaking about project like settlement of space, in the very near future, as a meaningful solution to the environmental problems, one'd have to weigh the resources (not to mention possibility and feasibility of such project in the first place; moving a billion of people to the space within couple of generations; when all we can gather now, is a handful and only for a while - this isn't even a scientific possibility, more like a fantasy, or a pipe dream).