myata

No, eh? Thought so. Could it because you aren't not sure if you yourself have any clue about it (and make that ... of yourself, but in front of a learned audience)? Or just natural modesty?

Except it wouldn't be exactly true. It's a common knowledge that inspection teams were fully operational in Iraq immediately before the invasion. Why wait? Just start a new topic.

Given that (real and qualified) experts seem to be divided on the matter, you definitly should consider contributing your valued opinion to their learned discussions. Why wasting your expertise here on someone who wouldn't even be able to recognise it for the gem it is. And who knows maybe it's your flawless argument that will decide the matter once and forever?

Rue: many word can be spent but they don't change facts. And the facts are that during the time of the British mandate, Jewish population of the territories have increased dramatically, both in absolute numbers and in proportion (wikipedia, BBC). Regarding Blair's role, I doubt he'll make significant change in this matter. It's not a matter or personality or power, but of trust. His role in the Iraq war simply doesn't make him a credible mediator to both sides. Compare with all previous attempts by US administrations to achieve a breakthrough. No matter how high level or presumably well intended they simply do not qualify as impartial mediator which can be trusted by both sides.

To B-C: if the situation with Kosovo was similar to Iraq with respect to proper authorization, I'll agree that Kosovo was illegal as well. It's simply another topic which isn't directly related to this discussion. Generally, I've no interested to go into pseudo-legalistic arguments as these discussions tend to degenerate into. I'm no expert in the international law and I have no information that those on the opposite side of this argument were either. If there was on this planet a court, based on the concept of law and impartial justice and competent in the matter, it would be the only way to decide the matter formally. For the absence of that possibility, however, I do find it appropriate to examine this situation from a common sense perspective, and that why domestic analogy. From that perspective it's very obvious that final authorisation was indeed required. It's is obvious from the following translation of pre-war situation into everyday language: 1. Saddam is put on parole; 2. Parole officer (Hans Blix's team) reports progress, along with some issues, and recommends continuation of inspections; 3. Some parties aren't satisfied with the progress and request authorisation for a strong action; 4. Authorization for the action is not given. The only legal choice in this situation, in our everyday law, would be to continue parole while possibly attempting to pursuade the judge to change their decision. Direct action wouldn't be a legal option. So, the war is illegal in the common sense, if not that of the international law view (which still isn't settled, if ever will be). And that's good enough for me.

Like, they didn't really want to but out of pure service to humanity? How many members from the region were there in the League of Nations at the time the mandates were awarded? (hint: 1) How many from Europe and its dominated territories? (hint: great majority). Who were the dominant powers in Europe after the defeat of Germany in WWI? (hint: Britain and France) And who got the mandates? Surprise, Britain and France!

No they needed it because since the old order was issued ten years had passed and the situation on the ground has changed. The same reason police will need a current warrant for any action. Kosovo may or may not be relevant to this discussion, depending on the specifics. I really don't remember the details. If it was done without proper sanction from the UN then certainly there would be a case to call it illegal. But it's a topic for another discussion.

If it is an outstanding 10 year old warrant, it can certainly be legally applicable. Sometimes criminals evade them for many years. Evading the consequences of one's acts for ten years doesn't make one innocent of the charge. It's not a matter of innocence, simply of due process. If an action is required on the outstanding order, the police would have to go to a judge and obtain a warrant. They (Iraqi coalition) did understand that, and they did go to the Security council and tried to obtain the authorisation for the war. And they didn't get one. Not much can be added, really. If judge now and today won't give police the warrant based on the old order, that's the end of way. They can come back with more information and try to change the decision, but they can't just go and do it anyways. That would be illegal.

And Germany invaded France in 18.. and Britain Russian and so on and on. You were going to prove that it's something that is specific to Middle East and Islam, remember? Why oversimplify? One bullet is not the same as massive and continuous supply of weapons to friendly regimes. Your lack of understanding is showing. And yes, definitely Iran will be responsible for its part of causing continuing violence in Iraq if what you're saying is proven. Where did I say "every"? You lack of reading complehension is showing. You assert that the Iran-Iraq was was nothing more than a Western proxy war? Your credibility is falling from 'low' to 'none' with that remark. Ha-ha-ha. You referred to Iraq in the context of american invasion. Check your own post if memory does not serve you anymore. That would be according to you (see a note on reading comprehension above). According to me, massive and ongoing interference by foreign powers creates many problems which will and are coming back to haunt them. The best solution is to stop meddling and deal with all countries in the fair and open manner. ... Specifically by refraning from interfering in any internal conflicts on either side. Most certainly. Have you considered logical argumentation as an alternative? OK, here we go. Them people not able to take care of their own affairs. Forever the burden of the white man. BTW, how exactly did it require an necessitated? Maybe some historical examples? Several empires have collapsed in Europe without requiring and necessitaing colonial governance. What was so different in the Middle East? Why couldn't they simply be left to handle their own affairs?

So you're stating it before having proved anything. Is it a confidence building thing? No, all countries mentioned by you were of the same religious descent (Muslim). But they would definitely amount to major stability issues, if confirmed. Care to post a reference to those invasions of Saudi Arabia and Syria? I have this link: list of conflicts in the Middle East,, and it doesn't mention either. Nor can I recall them from my memory. Finally, Iran - Iraq war was not without foreign involvement (see the same link). Point taken. But providing technology and weaponry to countries involved in conflicts makes one complicit and partly responsible for the result. Not mention when these are used as the means of indirect influence. I'd question if it's a wise and productive policy in the long run. It is indeed a perfect example but of an undisguised foreign interference. There's no way one can extrapolate that mindless aventure to the general situation in the country. Perhaps if the people of Iraq had the chance to deal with dictator on their own terms and timescale, they would have come up with a working solution. This opportunitly is now becoming more and more remote. Thank you, it confirms my point quite nicely. By getting mired into the internal politics of these regimes, foreign powers 1) lose popularity with the people of the region; and 2) polarize population and encourage the rise of extremism. How? If the regimes did not feel that support, they'd have to compromise with the opposition. That would make the more sensitive to the needs and concerns of the population, but also, bring the opposition into the responsibilities for the governance. Which is a much togher role than blind opposition. No, but I believe in sticking to the facts. The history of the last century was one of almost continuos interference in the region. It is no wonder that our popularity there is, shall we say, less than desired. And with the last statement, do you mean to say that the abused people are somehow complicit in their situation because some of them choose to cooperate with the abusers? You're certainly free to bail out of this discussion, but that would be because of your choice, not that the label you're putting on the opponent has anything to do with that. And once again you are mixing up two very different notions of "blame": one, practical blame for the direct results of their policies that caused and continue to cause much suffering, must be assigned where it belongs. Most importantly because perhaps, some time in the future, however distant it could be, it may cause those who committed the deeds (or their descendents) to change their ways. And once they did and the region is allowed to develop on its own, it'll be in the good position to reflect on the (remaining) mess and who or what is to blame.

As it appears, we apply different meaning when we say "problem" so there needs to be some clarification here. I'm talking about the problems from the regional stability perspective. Those like: wars, major violence, hot spots and so on. You're obviously looking more into philosophical / social problems. Which is OK and absolutely legitimate, however they aren't the same kind of problems. BTW, no country or society is free of this kind of problems. So, let's see: While a legitimate issue for cultural and even maybe international policy (e.g. w.r.t access to Holy Sites or treatment of minorities), it was not a major regional stability problem, other than in selected very localized areas (like Lebanon as mentioned in my earlier post) due to the simple fact that Muslim population is (or was before creation of Israel) by far prevalent in the region. You'd have to point to a major confrontation between denominations from within the region (ie. Crusades won't count) to prove otherwise. All are important cultural phylosophical issues for the Eastern societies to be concerned with. I don't see how they are related (in any direct manner, as all things in the world are related in some way) to the regional stability. If their technology lags behind, it's up to them to fix it. It does not give us the right to interfere in their affairs, nor teach them how they should live. Here my knowledge is in sufficient as is information in your post. I understand that is a major religious divide, however how important is/was it as a stability issue? I.e. can you point to any/many major cases of tensions that did not result, or were strongly affected by interference from outside the region. Such as: US propping Sunni governments (Saudi Arabia) against Shia (Iran), and more recently, actions of the coalition in Iraq. Otherwise it would be just another example of "divide and conquer" strategy which is directly linked to my argument. More socio-philosophy. Definitely something for the Eastern societies to consider, but none of our business nonetheless. But there isn't many "endemic" ones that relate to the real actual "mess" on the ground (ie., not counting socio philosophy, which is a topic for another however fascinating discussion). So far we have #1 multi-ethnic tensions in localized hotspots and #5, tensions between major religion dialects, yet to be confirmed as a real stability issue, after discounting all the effects from external interference. Not much and none has much to with Islam. These kind of problems occur anywhere on the planet whatever ethnicity or religion involved. There're obvious example everybody will be able to point out. What you may wanted to say is that Eastern societies have deep socio-economical challenges that perhaps can be traced in some aspects to their religiouos culture. That may be correct, but it in no way by itself explains the unacceptable security situation in the region, absolves those who interfered from their responsibility or gives them a reason to continue meddling.

Wow... what an insight! Definitely a key argument in the pro-war case. Makes all the difference.

Wouldn't it be easier and more practical (from management and operating perspective) to simply allow such interest groups to offer voluntary courses and programs, within public schools, as long they satisfy certain curriculum requirements (i.e being educational, in line with the laws and traditions of this country, etc) and taught by a professional teacher? Of course, financing of such courses would be subject to sufficient registration, not unlike courses offered by colleges or e.g city recreational programs.

The "earlier resolution" argument has no standing from any point of view other than hired (and paid skyhigh $$$$) lawyer's. For a simple analogy, consider police coming to search your house with a 10 year old order. Of course they'll be laughed out of court. Clearly, Bushes & Co understood at least that much, so they went to Security Council and tried to get a fresh resolution. They wasted no effort twisting members hands (and truth) but in the end they did not get it. That's it, period. There's no legal ground for the Iraq war.

OK, ruling by divide and conquer, plotting and interferening, setting up a foreign state, not to mention two world wars and most recent "democratization" campaign, do not amount to a "key problem"? What are the real ones? And how do they relate to reality we see on the ground? Let's see: Lebanon: certainly it's multi denominational population could be a potential cause for sporadic explosions. A border with Israel contributes not a small bit to already complicated conundrum. Iran-Iraq war: not a secret that secular Iraqi regime of President Saddam Hussein (later to be known and despised dictator Saddam) enjoyed significant aid from West in its war against Islamic Iran. Islamism (in Iran and throughout the region): massive support (and occasiounal interference in favour) of quasi-secular or "moderate" regimes is not in the least responsible for polarisation and upsurge in popularity of radical Islamism. This policy is widespread: Iran (removal of Mossadeq replaced by Shah), Saudi Arabia, Egypt. Israel: surely, the questionnable way in which it was originated and created has added a major hotspot into the region. Democratization and Iraq: another obvious example of interference to install a friendly regime in a "wanted" country. Apparently the example of Iran and Vietnam haven't taught us much. I have to admit, I have never studied the history of the region, and probably some major details are missing in this analysis. However, if there're other "key" problems in the region, what exactly would they be?

definitely How did you make this logical transition, I beg ya? Would such notions as "fair trade", "common issues", "peace and stability" be totally and completely beyound us? Not "any" aid. But massive military aid to cronies, most certainly.

Except one the chidren boasts to be the champion of liberty peace and democracy while having the biggest army on this planet.

Using the analogy of our day to day life, any warlike (i.e violent and damaging) action by an individual agains another, which is not in direct and immediate protection of their or other's life is against the law. I.e. one can't go and blast their neighbours home because they think that neighbour could be plotting against them. It's a simple definition, but it would clear a lot of confusion, if used consistently. The threat must actual, immediate and serious, or you cannot respond with a war, period. Obviously it would immediately rule out infamous justifications like: - Nazis attack on Poland based on staged assault on German border checkpoint in WWII; - US war on Vietname based on allegedly staged incident with a patrol ship; even if it weren't staged, the threat to the US was not immediate or serious to begin a full blown war. - Coalition war in Iraq: again, no actual, immediate or anywhere serious threat is sight. On the other hand, these wars can be considered as justified because they resulted from actual, direct and immediate threat: - Allied coalition in WWII; - Kuweit war

Pretty much summarizes it. Not much can be added. If you truly stopped meddling in their affars and held to it for a while (like, long while - the policy of interference has been going on since early 1900), and they're still bent on "destroying your democratic values" a la Blair, you have a case. Otherwise it's just a load of nonsense for the want of more explicit word.

Not everything. I would agree that their culture is different, their technology is less advanced and their societies work in a different way. But it's still no reason to release that urge to enlighted the world according to my view of how it should work. So, yes, why won't we leave them alone? Good question to ask Messirs Bush, Blair and the Co.

Sure is. As if by repeating that word over and again he (and the like) could suddenly will all other kinds of "violence" that exist in this world away.

If I recall correctly, prior to occupation by Britain (under League of Nations mandate), the place was a part of the Ottoman empire. I'm sure they had some issues at the time but I can't see how it's relevant to today's situation. Then, while under British occupation, there happened to come about a massive immigration of foreign nationals, out of the blue and apparently while British were looking the other way. Then the British protectors themselves were kicked out (or withdrew according to the plan - there're different theories to that). Hard to pretend that it's something that's just happened. Anyways, the British were the protectors of the territory at the time and as such should take their share of kudos for the result. Not to the exclusion of others who pulled through the speedy "settlement" that sparkled the conflict that will last who knows how long. And of course, the main parties themselves who seem so grounded in the past that there's little hope for the future.

What would it take to pass such amendment in this province? Apparently, Ontario is one of a very few provinces that still support the separate system, so it must be doable. Even in Quebec, for that matter.

I was listening to a discussion about the issue not so long ago, where the main argument "for" was that its a tradition that's deeply "entrenched". Those "against" were of both practical (saving on parallel administration) and principal (should public pay for a "specific" education? why only catholic and not other religions? etc) kind. My understanding is that catholic schools were already funded but only to a certain level, and the choice was to drop it alltogether or extend to the full level of the public system. Not unlike this government's decision on religious arbitration, that went the other way. Anyways, maybe it was a right choice then. But the times change, situations change and traditions change. There's little doubt that savings on parallel systems can be redirected to the schools, which are underfunded. There's little doubt that majority supports it. The only issue is that it's a hot potato as far as politicians are concerned so there's pretty little chance of seeing any change before the election.

In my view, these doctors should be kicked out of the public system, period. They can exercise their private beliefs in their private practice. Then, depending on the legalities of the oath they take, maybe they can still be sued for refusing to provide essential service to the patient.