myata

Should I point out the obvious, that Ignatieff making a particular comment doesn't mean his opionion is that of the party, nor that it's shared by all party members. Your choice of the title for this topic is misguided.

No, that was a very legitimate question, so, again, why should Federal govt collect twice as much taxes as my provincial one, if I barely ever get any service from them? Sure provinces can raise taxes, but the real question is why feds should keep theirs and roll in billions in annual surpluses. Here's a suggestion: every time Feds come up with a surplus (OK, consecutive surplus, to account for possible fluctuations), they pass a number of tax points to the provinces (in proportion to the size of the surplus, exact formula can be worked out). The opposite can happen too, but only by consensus of all provinces. I just don't see how we can continue to shell in to the fed government which does not know where to put these money, while provinces are struggling to support essential services.

And so on .... And that must be your intellectual high?

Was it also the case before the creation of Israel (and mass expulsion of arabs )? Just a thought - before one's carried away far into existential "conflict of religions" / "good agains evil" and like domains.

My, you really breaking new ground here, my friend.

Whatever global reactions, it's hard to argue that Israel is an innocent victim of unwarranted and unprovoked assaults. Not after: - sprawling illegal settlements on the occuplied lands supported by full military force of the state; - expropriations of lands; - targeted killings; - heavyhanded reprisals and incursions; - and so on

Regardless of the role of Quebec in this matter, and maybe against my own wishes, the existence of the imbalance is reinforced every time I do my taxes (and I do them myself so I can see exactly where they're going). In all recent years (I confirmed it recently as I was growing curious myself about the issue), about 2/3 of total was going to federal, and only 1/3 - to the province. I.e., twice as much to the feds as to the province. Then I asked myself what was the last service I received from Federal government - and I have trouble answering the question even after a prolonged contemplation. Sure, there's a passport - but haven't I already paid for it 80 bucks? SIN card - I struggle to recall last time I used it. Then there're all kind of transfers - infrastructure, housing and so on - but what if the moneys stayed in the province to begin with? So from personal experience it appears that imbalance does exist - even if I personally would like to think otherwise. I think to begin with, the proportion should be changed to the opposite: 2/3 to the province - as provider of all essential services, 1/3 (or so) - to the Feds, for coordination, transfers, and federal activities like army or foreign policy.

Wouldn't it be, like, coersion?? Generally on the topic, as most simplistic and one-sided solutions, this one is deeply flawed. History has many times over showed us that left on their own, (some) businesses are prone to abuse and will try to extract extra profit (pun intended) whenever possible. Minimum wage legislation is an important guard against such abuse. It is also simple and clear to understand message to both employees and employers, as to what level of pay is fair.

Minimum wage can only be what it means - i.e. the "minimum" wage that is being paid in the economy. The law simply acknowledges economic reality and protects it against abuse (e.g. attempt to achieve competitive advantage by paying lower wages) and regress. No government in its right mind would try to set the minimum wage above the level at which it's settled in the economy. It would be useless waste of resources. The economy would simply readjust itself via inflation and the minimum wage will cost (in the real terms of goods and services) exact same amount as before such reform.

On 30 K? You must be kidding, right? Or maybe consider yourself poor if you don't have 50" TV on a monthly rent? And an SUV? It's this kind of outrageours claims that drops credibility of their authoring groups down to the ground level, instantly. Even if they may have some worthy programs somewhere on their agenda, which is really sad (and counter productive if the aim is to actually get some real help to some who really need it, and not fan out hot air). BTW, I'm speaking from personal experience, and knowing several people who make half of that many years on. It's plain and obvious nonsense.

It's way more than enough for a family of 4. Just do a math. I believe the average income per Canadian is in mid 30 K now, so the next thing we'll hear from NDP is that average family with one income earner must be poor. Just saddens me that they come up with such an obvious BS (1 in 6 Canadians poor, all children poor and so on), it instantly undermines credibility for the legitimate causes in social develoment.

OK, thanks for the correction. But I fail to see your point: cruise missiles are as powerful, have longer range (than those crude missiles used in the conflicts you described) and superior precision. The US has ballistic missiles in huge numbers, but they have different purpose: as the carrier of nuclear warheads. They simply aren't useful in a conventional mid range conflict because of imprecision.

Check your terminology please. Ballistic missiles are those that go into space and can hit a target on the other side of the globe. If you mean medium and long range missiles like this, US/UK et all used them in many operations, Iraq included.

What I struggle to understand, is it extreme self righteousness that is oblivious to its own blatant hypocrisy, or just marketing?

And here we go again, just in time for this discussion. Looks like two days cannot pass without US lecturing somebody in this world on peace and democracy: Cheney comments on China, from CBC. This is after Star Wars, Iraq, Iran, tactical N-bombs, missile defense system, and so on going all the way back to Hiroshima. Just out of curiousity, does anybody know of one single example when US could acquire some new deadly superadvanced weapon, and chose not to, out of moral peace principle?

Scroll down... Sure, if they (oppenents) deem themselves to be in that state of "total war", why not? It's your words, not mine. What's the meaning of "total war" anyways? When survival is at stake? Or power balance in a territory thousand miles away? It was considered but rejected. The demonstration bombs would not have had the same effect. Plus, there was the risk of what might occur if the "wonder weapon" turned out to be a dud. Plus, at the time, they had but two bombs available. If the demonstration failed in it's intended effect, then what? OK, the morality's wearing thinner with each question. It might still have had some effect. Perhaps sufficient effect to cause opposition to surrender, avoiding 100,000 civilian death. Wouldn't it be worth a try by someone so moral? Plus, didn't they have tests in Arizona, which clearly demonstrated the power of the weapon? Plus, they could, of course, make more (as they did), it'd only take some cash and a bit of time - presuming that first demo would actially fail. Whatever way it's prodded, it just does not appear to be that doomsday apocaliptic situation that simply pushed their fingers to the button. There were options and choices, definitely more ethical and possibly less deadly. Maybe it's time to admit the truth - that the war situation itself was not the main factor in the decision?

I'm sure you've got better arguments, just didn't happen to find them (yet). In your own words, this particular act is in every way what the side would do. No, wrong. I condemn the act because of ethics which are eternal and absolute, not "would / could have" guesswork which can be pulled any way depending on the need. One can always behave ethically regardless of what happens. That is, to say, if someone believes themselves to be in a wartime condition, and couldn't find a more cost efficient alternative to mass killing of innocents to achieve their objectives, such an act, in your view, would be fully justified? Of course, as long as they also consider their situation to be very unique? BTW, here's another option that could have been (but was never) tried, let call it "a warning shot". Drop the thing 10 miles off shore in the full view of the emperor's palace. Might have worked. Except would cost one of the eight? precious bombs. Was the cost too high (to clarify: dollar cost) for a moral consideration too? Or, there's another moral reason why it hadn't been tried - given potential impact?

Very well said. You're putting yourself on the same level with your presumably morally inferior opponents. Except you never proved it and moreover, it's impossible to prove - one'd need a crystal ball to the way future actually turns (what if, as Remiel said, Japanese would have surrendered the day after the invasion? what if they didn't after first two nukes - would you take out a city each week till they did?). Anyways, this argument can obviously be pulled whatever way is necessary to justify the act post factum and so there's no point in going there. Sure, they can "consider". And choose mass killing of innocents if it proves cost effective in their analysis. And the point isn't limited to "wartime" (whatever it's supposed to mean - defending one's homeland / struggle for control or a remote territory / meddling in other peoples' affairs through proxies?) or this particular "other side" or that. You either apply ethics to yourself - or lose the right to apply them to the others.

My final word on this: you surely understand that once you said that ethic considerations take back seat to expediency (i.e. it's OK to nuke civilians in their 100,000 s to achieve a military objective, if other means aren't feasible, or cost prohibitive (or you think them to be cost prohibitive)), that same logic can (and will) be applied to you by the other side. And you will be in no position whatsoever to condemn them taking that morality stand. You simply lost that ground and opted out for the good all "winner takes all" strategy. Be honest and admit it: can't have it both ways. And don't whine (i.e fan moral goodness ethics words) when someone else does the same thing to you. It's a wild world. You yourself made it that way.

Because I wouldn't be playing god and will be held responsible for my own actions whichever way history may turn (which there's no way to tell with any certaintly). Your personal choice may be whatever you like, but what about those who were never asked? With a blockade, the opposition has the choice to end their suffering and surrender. By nuking them, you take that choice from them. That makes you and you only (in figurative meaning - not B.D. as individual) responsible for the deaths. The rest is just rationalizations you bring in to justify your decision.

Your own numbers are quite different from what you're trying to say. 100,000 military CASUALTIES is not the same as 240,000 civilian DEAD (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). No, I'm not advocating calculus. I'm just saying that it's beyond morality or ethicity. I.e. anyone involved in it, no matter on which side, loses all grounds to claims of morals or ethics. No we could not prevent some deaths if the story turned one way or another. But we wouldn't cause massive suffering as direct result of our own actions. And, that war is war thing, one can see through it too. There're wars and wars. This particular one was not a war of survival, but of dominance for a particular territory. Using WMD in such a war, against civilians, was even more reprehensible.

You mean, more convincingly that utter immorality / unethicity of using WMD against civilians? Yes, I'd like to hear that argument too.

Gee, sounds like a calculus of gods. You live and you die - all for the better future. I thought that was something we so despised in communism. No I guess it's OK when we're doing it - we know that we're the good guys, after all. Then I'm sure you can substantiate it with some analysis, given the numbers already posted in this thread?

Right. Given, that unlike war in Europe, this one was fought 1000s miles away from the US territory and there was never a survival threat to them (only a threat to their "interests" in the Pacific), I can't see how anyone pretending to be (genuinly) "moral" and ethical would even consider A. The choice would be between B and C and I agree that the former would be extermely high cost. Yet, some here are trying to pretend that C does (did) not exist. Is it genuine blindness - or the old tired "one set of rules for us, another - for them", I wonder.

Yes, I know. All things can be rationalized (with sufficient stretch of imagination, that is). Sigh (and yawn). But in case it escaped you, it's not about efficiency arithmetics. For anyone who pretends to be "moral", there's a line that they would never cross - because it's on the other side of morality. Erasing two cities full of civilians falls right there - on the other side. Even though it may very well had been (little doubt here) the most efficient solution.