myata

Wow! The standard reflex response #1 of a warmonger stuck hard against the wall with no hope of any intelligent argument! I understand, it takes effort (and intelligence) to understand what others are saying. Perhaps, reading it again could help? There's always hope.

Of course, and ultimately it's up to the people of Quebec to decide. As they did, in three free referenda (and counting). Would you like to bet on China allowing such referendum in Tibet, or maybe, Taiwan? OK, their motives aren't any different then from imperial ambitions of Britain in America then? Nothing to do with "liberation"? Yet without those, how does one know that "racial repression" isn't taking place? From your communist paper? Or maybe, state controlled TV? Then surely, China would agree to "cancel" the rights of Tibetans (Taiwanese, etc) in a similar way, i.e. by letting them hold a referendum on the same conditions? Not only Canada, but the whole world would gladly accept the will of people expressed freely in a clear majority and answering a clear question. Again: any chance of that happening, anytime soon?

Sure, if you insist on the narrow definition of "we", then "we" aren't also any significant victim of Al Quaeda (e.g. by far, order of magnitude less significant when e.g. Air India bombing). If "we" 've nothing to do with Iraq, why should the same "we" worry about moral propositions of Al Quaeda?

Rue, there's a deep wide gap between helping somebody, and taking control of their lives. What we're doing in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other places, is and by far, the latter. There's many options, tools, strategies to keep a dictator at bay. Contain them, so that people themselves, using their own judgment, timing, and methods would deal with them (dictators) appropriately. What we're doing achieves nothing. All these deaths, which by far exceed anything that Saddam (in his later years, after first war), or Al Quaeda, managed to do, are for nothing; because they aren't for a purpose; don't lead anywhere (unlike e.g struggle for freedom that writes itself into history of the country); just debris, dust raised by our thoughtless goodness (if that is, it's genuine foolish goodness, and not some behind the scene political, or economical, interest).

That's the fatal flaw in the argument. One should be (and is, at least in our, Canadian, legal system) held responsible for the result of their action, not the intent. If good intentions were to be an excuse, all those pedofiles who exude nothing but pure love, should go free (and maybe even commended? ). Our arch ancestors already knew quite well how (and who) paves the road to hell. But we're so slow to learn ... even what we routinely preach to others.

We (in a broad sense) went to Iraq and caused deaths of tens, if not hundred of thousands, innocents. Numbers any Al Quaeda could look up to. So?

Except that every such act begins with a lecture on morals, by the would be perfectors, of course. Shouldn't their bluff (or outrageous hypocrisy) be at least, called, in public?

Tibetians who protest don't ask for any China territory; only their own. There's another, easier and clearer way of finding out what Tibetans want. It's called a free election and / or referendum. Any chance of that happening, anytime soon?

Right, the first (and, pretty much, the last) argument of an uninvited perfector (see related thread in Moral issues) is that whatever's being done to the perfected, is done in their own interests. No matter their opinion (on being perfected); or cost thereof (direct and indirect, e.g the latest being Basra fighting). And because it's the perfector themselves who define what's good vs evil, whatever they do is bound to be that (i.e., good). By definition. One cannot argue with that kind of logic. Only stand by and observe.

One way to approach the question of "perfectability" of man (by another man - or who else??) is to apply the concept of relativism (see Einstein). Really. Either there's one unquestionable authority who/which is universally known to be perfect (and by extension, can perfect anybody else) - or, perfection must be a relative concept. Which one is true? If there's one individuum who does not recognize some /any however glorous, leader or guru (such as e.g G. Bush or any of the ones quoted above) as a universal and unquestionnable source of perfection, it has to be the alternative #2. I.e one man's perfection may very well be another's anathema. What happens than the former attempts to perfect the latter? Your guess. Another question must be, of course, does the intent to perfect others require their consent (to be perfected)? Most of the forementioned gurus, implicitly, assumed that perhaps it doesn't. I.e that their (self appointed) position of ultimate perfection already allows them to go and improve others, even if against their will (but certainly in their best interests). That proposition of course easily and naturally extends to a more general one, that pretty much any act committed on anybody, with or without their consent, can be justified by the intent of doing them good. It has been widely applied in practice throughout the history, always with the desired effect (ie. the wanted outcome forced, no, let's say: transferred onto the recepient, while the perfector may enjoy the feeling of having performed another act of, goodness). Sadly though, it is also not the approach taken by our backward justice system, the one that puts the nature of the act, and its effect on the recepient of the intended good (or victim; really, it's only a matter of viewpoint) ahead of the perfector's motifs. For that, there's always hope. Hope that things will turn around, and go back to the glorious past, where they'll remain unquestioned, forever.

That's what I said. Their very own, private, "reality", that isn't necessarily related to the reality majority in this country lives in.

Self appointed? Funny... And I thought they were elected in a free vote open to all citizens? The one btw that gave them more sits than the last one ... an ousted the Tory leader from the Parliament... The length the conservatives will go to pursuade themselves in their very own, albeit alternative, version of reality.

As many Americans, you seem to be having issues with separating your own individual opinion from that of "your country". The burden of patriotism, I understand. Painful realization of truth comes much later, and again (and necessarily!) in an act of collective revelation. For the rest, no matter subtle technicalities, the difference between setting constraints on the ruling regime, and replacing it by force is quite obvious. That's the only point I'm making.

My, how gentelmenly of him (them). Yet as we all know the bunch won't ever hesitate to shove what they want on anybody, no matter what (ie law or no law). The only logical conclusion that remains after impossibilities are eliminated (i.e Harper's bunch resisting their own nature), is: no, they can't. You're certainly entitled to this opionion. Harper can even see it in his dearest dreams. That in no way makes it anywhere closer to the reality though (for a check, see e.g. the latest polls).

I remember, and trust the chief of the inspections commission, Mr Blix, who said not once that there was no need for the invasion. That settles the question, for me, and for all. The rest is Bush's clique schemes grandiouses.

I dunno, but Harper can't even do that (must be his popularity, soaring).

The federal politics are locked into a stalemate. Harpers crowd plain and simply cannot be trusted on anything that does not fit into their socially conservative agenda (see: environment; transparency; social justice; gun control; death penalty). While Liberals are locked into low 30% till they get a more electable leader. In this situation there's little point in going for an election, at least everybody understands that.

A special force operation hardly merits term "invasion". Watch your terminology. If foreign troops were in Iraq during the hostilities, they were removed afterwards. Which only proves my point. The dictator was taught a lesson, and / but it's not our business to tell other people who they should be governed by, or what sort of society they want to live in. That's why Gulf War I wasn't a catalyst for any hostilities against West, and hardly mentioned even by Al Quaeda. The second reincarnation of the war was a complete opposite: there was no compelling reason to go there in the first place (unless you want to believe in warmonger's fantasies, or simply looking for an excuse - a tactic, well familiar from the colonial past, isn't it?), and the objective was exactly to install a friendly government and export our model of life. That's why the result, now five years down, with over a 100,000 foreign troops (i.e 1 super armed foreign soldier per roughly 250 citizens including young, elderly, women and Iraq's own army and police force) is barely short of disastrous, not to mention possible "blowbacks" (whatever shape they may take) in the future.

Can't recall any invasions (of allies into Iraq) in the first Gulf War. Enlighten me.

How so? Saddam was sitting put and still up to the invasion. To me, that achieves the goal quite nicely. If "doing" involves unprovoked military invasions, any frinedly nation should point out that it's wrong (and counter productive in the long run) use of "capabilities". Supprting the folly would only prolong the sufferint and multiply negative effect.

Obviously you're missing the point about the right tool for the job. What's good to contain a petty dictator like Saddam, or some african voodoo, may not be enough in an all out war with a matching opponent. Moral criteria still apply in choosing the tools, or we'd end up on the same plain with the opponent we're fighting.

No, I didn't mean and never mentioned those. It was a different situation (a massive war) that calls for a different discussion (though I have to mention that I argued that use of nuclear weapons in those circumstances wasn't justified - by anybody claiming any allegiance to morality. Indiscriminate mass killing of civilians is exactly what US's opponents in that war were famous for). So what about Serbs? They didn't show much of a militant attitude following Kosovo incident. Maybe because the majority knew and understood that they (i.e their forces) were in the wrong. And nobody tried to set them up with a "democratic" government? That was of course, before recognition of Kosovo. That's when a local rescue mission started to turn into long term continental planning. A la Brits in Africa. Divide and conquer. That's how we make real enemies - for generations. Compare with Turkish Cyprus. They've been pseudo independent for decades. Had a load of peacekeepers. Had numerous negotiations for peace. Any nobody's in any hurry to recognize their independence.

Where did I say "wholesale"? Is that how you read "specific and targeted"? And no, these won't have anywhere as high "grievance" effect as wholesale exports of democracy (aka imposing and supporting friendly regimes) because a) will mostly affect the forces / assets / lifestyles of the supposedly hated government; and in many cases will directly benefit the population by restraining dictators actions (e.g. establishing "safe" non military heavens for refugees), and providing assistance (humanitarian).

E.g: when France's peacekeepers were attacked in Chad? the response was to destroy the country's entire airforce - by similar, though way more efficient air attack. Simple, efficient, affordable, and teaches the bully a good and timely lesson. Other strategies were also quoted, sorry have no time for reiterations. The bottom line is, teaching a bully is much more a matter of demonstration, than domination. It may not be possible or feasible to "change" or "reeducate" a dictator; but tools exist to make them obey; at issue, as always, is using the right tools for the job, as well as, of course, the will, and timeliness, of applying them.

It would be very easy to eliminate hockey brawls, completely. With zero tolerance, suspensions and stiff penalties. Compare to world's most popular game, soccer. But that's not what the public wants. We want to see gladiators on ice. And the kids only trying to follow in adults steps as they do. Vote with you wallet (and choice of channel).