myata

please ignore

This CBC article seem to clarify many controversies about this issue: CBC story. According to the EC President, "visual identification is not a requierement", as long as the voter can present two non-phote ids. From which I gather that nobody will be turned away if they wear full or partial face cover for a legitimate reason. E.g. a balaclava on a -40 day, or face bandage should all be acceptable. Now I'd like to see how it'd play out in reality.

Check this BBC story too: Iraq Surge Poll. The view appears to be quite different from the other side of the barrel.

You can still live in a common law polygamous relationship in this country all you want, if you find consenting companions of course. It becomes simply a matter of formality, rubber stamp. And I can't care less if it's formally recognized by the state as marriage or not. They are all examples of de facto poly-relationships which apparently can exist and flourish in the non authoritarian democratic societies. Essentially nullifying the argument that such relationships in themselves lead to authoritarianism and abuse of power.

I really hope that somebody will take EC to the court over that. E.g by taking ids with no photos on them to the station. What's the point of having a photo, if you can't see the face? I argued here that everybody is entitled to wear whatever they want, burqa or not. This is a question of equality though. If reliable identification is required to vote, it should be the same level of "confidence" regardless of ethnicity or religion. The opposite would constitute discrimination under the Charter. So if person A does not have to comply with photo (or some other form of physical) identification, why should I be required to?

Nope, I like it to be fair - to me. Now do you know anybody who could chip in some goodies to that effect?

How does this analysis account for such relatively common practices in some absolutely non authoritarian and democratic societies as "swap clubs", "swedish family" and the like? Aren't they, in some interpretation at least, a kind of poly "relationship" (to avoid the gender specific term) too? Looks like the author got the ends quite wrong: its' not the polygamy that creates authoritarianism and all the viles associated with it, but rather that autoritarianism may extend so far as to give some individuals near absolute power over others. Based on ethnics, political orientation, or even gender, and so on. It's in the nature of authoritarian societies to do just that, hardly a revelation. What is in the interests of a democratic society is to prevent that sort of power of another individual and any abuses of such power. Polygamy as such, between responsible and consenting adults is not illegal. Exercise and abuse of power over another individual in any relationship, is.

Maybe, and if so, apologies for the confusion, though I thought it's quite clear from the context. In any case, your argument definitely does not (apply in both situations). Simply because they aren't the same. Then one group suppresses another against their will and resistance, there's a rational point in voicing objections, etc, i.e. acting to change the situation. If, on the other hand, what's happening is a cultural norm of the people, generally accepted by most, even if very different from our standards, the only way to achieve a change is via a dialog. And dialog requires time and understanding. Lecturing from outside, or bombing into submission will achieve very little in the sense of actual progress (if progress is the real goal that is). P.S. generally, I'm not sure we here should be smug about our so called "moral superiority". In the historical perspective, it's still in the lifetime of one recent generation that West has produced 1) most destructive and deadly war in the human history; 2) most murderous dictatorship ever; 3) probably most destructive attack on the innocent population, ever. Not counting countless invasions, colonizations etc. In the scope of the world, and in the perspective of recent history, we have neither the standing nor credibility to lecture other people on issues of morality. And if and when we do, I wonder if anybody listens as nobody hears those street corner preachers.

Simple, indeed. In SA, invading foreigners usurped the control over the local population. By basically making them slaves in their own country and against their will. To which local population eventually come to object, in both peaceful and armed ways. Which objections, eventually, became quite impossible to ignore. In Saudi Arabia (e.g. - as in many other places), the laws and practices which upset us here in the West so much are part of the local culture. Meaning that most of population are, generally in agreement with them (or we would have seen some signs of serious discontent). Just as our forefathers were generally OK with burning witches, converting the barbarians, and using human beings as slaves not so many generations ago. It tooks us several centuries to get from "there" to "here". Thinking logically, one can only deduce that it'll take a few generations for others to catch up with the ideas of equality and democracy. Invavding them and force feeding our way of life will achieve nothing but slow down the progress and make it more painful.

Which makes me think that perhaps all the push around Kyoto II and especially bringing third world countries to the table is somewhat premature. How about this simple test: the moment this country comes around to achieveing a real hard reduction in its own carbon emissions (even against 2006 level for what I care) we'll gain some moral right to preach environmental consciousness to others. Because unlike Alberta which is enjoying next to 0% unemployment and $20/hr McDonalds jobs, countries like China and India still have millions which must be fed.

Don't really have time to comment on the rest - need a grammophone or CD player for that. Yes it will change one very important thing: we will not bear responsibility for what those dictatorships are doing with our help, not to mention direct interference like Iraq war as the latest of numerous cited examples.

OK, here's the logical link between the two: both are obvious and glaring examples of Western interference in the region. Nope, you haven't. But I'm not interested in circular arguments of "you said I said kind". Please reread your earlier post and my response to it. How do you know? Do you have a magic ball in which you see the future? And what if we made that huge leap of mentality and just tried, for a change? Surely, the sky would fall down? BTW, are they the same undemocratic authoritarian dictators you were complaining about? If so, why are we so willing to oblige to their wishes (if they are, indeed, their wishes)? Pure love of humanity? So nobody created these problems: inter-ethnic conflicts originating to colonial policies; Israel; removal of popular regimes and support of dictators; supporting warring fractions (Bin Laden's against Soviets; warlords against Taleban; Fatah against Hamaz, ..... to near infinity). Finally full scale invasion in Iraq; Are you talking about some alternative history in another Universe? So, the West installed the Ottomans in Turkey? Or Mohammad Ali in Egypt? Or the Ayatollah's of Iran? Or the House of Saud? Are you having problems reading English? Or just interpreting it? I said "SOME" which isn't a synonym of "ALL". To which we have no choice but to submit and oblige. Ha-ha-ha. Absurd indeed is your interpretation. What I said is that US invasion of Iraq is another, obviuos and glaring example of interference and manipulation in the region. Which links to the long string of previous events. It's certainly a serious problem for them. It's nothing to do, however, with our responisibility for our deeds.

What is poisoned? What Americans blew up Iraq? Why searh for logic in setting things upside down? It's really simple. Interference by foreign powers creates tensions in the region. These tensions are sometimes exploited by the authoritarian regimes. The cause is the interference, the effect is its manipulation by the regimes. Without one, there would not be another. No, I'm operating purely on facts. Earlier in this thread I listed current ongoing conflicts which can be traced directly to some incident of foreign involvement. And yes, some "dictatorships" also were created with our direct participation. In any case, I do not believe we in the West are in any position to teach other people how they should live. If they are used to authoritarian rule, they should be able to have it for as long as they like it and aren't doing anything hostile. Remember, in historically miniscule terms, we ourselves are only just out of the biggest mess ever seen on this planet (WWI and II, complite with using WMD against civil population). Nobody has managed to match that yet, hard as they tried. Really, can't be said any better. Who benefits from the mess in Iraq? Maybe contractors linked to administration and making starbucks at the expense of taxpayers whose children are dying in the doomed war? If you saw Fifth Element you may recall the episode in which Zorg demonstrates the benefits of mess on the ground. Nothing happened so far to convince me that it's some noble ideals and not the plain old urge to control everything (and grab a good chunk of juicy stuff while at that), that's at work here.

Thanks for admitting the obviuos. Yes someone maybe using the past grievances in the wrong way i.e to thier own advantages and not the the benefit of the people. That does not make them (grievances) any less real or deserving of attention, especially as interference does not stop. Consider Iraq, and now Iran. Well I thought that you admitted the obvious but apparently not for long. What is "little more than"? Palestinian refugees and situation in the occupied territories? Massive military aid to the friendly, even if less than spotless on the democracy agenda, regimes? Iraq war? The threat of one in Iran? Those are today's news. Which world are you living in?

That however would require a specialist qualification and experience. Of which (your possessing of) there's been no mention here. Without such your telling me how the system works is no different from me telling how it does not. Are we going to discuss quarks theory next? That does not prove legality of war, simply that the mechanism of UNSC in condemning unauthorised agression by its permanent and veto wielding member is grossly inadequate. There would be no practical gain for any of the members in bringing up such a resolution. That of course means UNSC is not impartial in the result. It is not a court of law.

Interesting. My viewpoint is based on a very simple practical fact that is evidenced daily anywhere on this planet: if someone is pissed off strongly and continuously over a period of time, there's bound to be a backlash. The last hundred years was such continuous and strong interference by outsiders in the region. Now we're seeing the backlash. Yet you fail to see the direct causal link and instead want to relegate it all to philosophy and history. Isn't it like, ideological?

I might have considered doing that just to make someone happy. Too late, sorry. And so, to round this discussion up: 1) There was no credible "common sense" arguments for the war presented here; and, 2) You failed to provide any evidence of your qualified contribution in a specialist discourse on the matter that is recognised by the peers; To me, it walks and quacks like there's no arguments for the legality of war. So far, at least.

I guess that was the climax of what you could come up with as far as contributions to this thread go. Well done. Congratulations. Everybody's truly impressed.

While where were some troops deployed near the border, I know of no reference to the facts you mentioned. Unless you referred to Holliwood movies, of course. And even if it were proven to be true, it's not the same (by scale, role and the objective) as the full invasion on the ground as in Iraq. What are your sources? This article only lists around 500 civilian casualties as the high estimate. I'd rather have it that it was authorized by the UN. However in the absense of such authorization and with ongoing unilateral agressive action by Serbia, a limited police operation with the objective to only stop the offensive (and not take the control of the country as in Iraq) could be accepted as justifiable. As you see, many events in this situation make it quite different from Iraq.

Thought of asking your psychoanalyst? Or maybe, in addition to your other talents you were also given the sight?

Not really. Action in Kosovo and Serbia was much less than a full scale war (airstrikes on selected targets, aimed at making Serbian authorities withdraw its army from Kosovo). At no time there was a presence of Nato troops on the ground which was not authorised by the UN (timeline). Such a "war" was going on in Iraq for a decade after Kuwait invasion (no fly zone, routine airstrikes on Iraqi installations) and I would have no problem if it continued until Iraq fully complied with its obligations. Also, could have been as a more efficient strategy for Afganistan but the US was too itchy for action after 9/11.

I do not believe that this country should be in the business of "spreading the freedom". Thanks for pointing it out. Another reason to keep an eye on Harper, especially in Afganistan.

Whatever it had to do with the Oka crisis, I'd at least understand that position if the US administrations wouldn't be pumping its chest on every corner as a champion of international peace and democracy. As it stands, its policy is less than consistent. And credible at that.

Sorry, but more than just saying is needed to prove. How did he earned that creadibilty? By blindly following Bush into Iraq quagmire? By repeating over and again that it was the right thing to do? Maybe it's worth trying to earn their trust then? By first recognising one's responsibility for earlier deeds, then taking a position that is more balanced than automatic support of one side in the conflict? Is there any other alternatives? A settlement cannot be achieved without both sides agreeing to it.

And the alternative? The right of the might?