myata

And their parents taking government grants to settle on the occupied land, and wearing guns on patrols in their settlements also are only passive targets? I have to qulify that this applies to settlers on the occupied land, not residents of Israel proper. They are every single bit the same willing human shields as those Palestinian women.

Well, yes, there were any number of "analysts" floating around this democratization strategy so one wonders what their sources of inspiration were, so the motivation part sounds quite plausible. It's an absolute non-starter as a legal argument though.

Thanks for accepting all my arguments. As for the last question, you should really work on your reading skills. The answers were proveded (hint: begin with "not up to you and me ..." and have something like "elections under gunpoint"). Seriously, it was already explained to you by other users that token elections in unstable and insecure condition aren't reflective of the will of population and cannot be equaled to real democracy. They are simply an excuse the Bushes need to have at least some, however flumsy and incredible, justification to its absolutely unwarranted actions.

I gather you'll agree then that the attacks on Israeli civilian settlers would be also fully justified by the same token? They really nothing more than willing human shields whom their country encouraged and sponsored to settle on the occupied land to establish and extend their claim to it.

These serious (and even scary) reports from todays BBC: Depletion of ocean resources; Record increase in greehouse emissions; seem to line up with a number of other trends (over population, loss of productive land) to point to a serious environmental crisis in the middle of this century. It's scary to think that the party may not last forever and some of those catastrophic movies may come true even in our lifetimes.

Here, KrustyKidd, is the roundup of our discussion: Who has the authority to set up democracy outside their borders? - "Nobody" Who has invited US in to liberate Iraq and set up their government? - ditto (no evidence of such invitation was provided) Was it possible for people of Iraq to liberate themselves, at the right time and conditions? - Yes (no counter argument was given to the example of a number of nations which achieved liberation without outside interference in the recent years) Hence, US had no legitimate claim to, nor the authority, to liberate Iraq or anybody else for that matter. Whatever they did was because of their own misguided considerations and the mess that resulted is their responsibility and their alone. The time is ripe for the Bushes to pay for their little misadventure, in political terms at least, if criminal isn't yet possible (as it should be though). This is not to say that the people of Iraq cannot have a democracy. They will have whatever they decide to have and it may take much time and many more lives to figure out. If there were to be some credit to the coalition for their part in the final liberation, so be it, they'll get their thanks in the future. But they still have to bear full responsibility for the mess they created here and now.

That was, of course, in the alternative Universe and history. Here, in this one, they kept on pressing bs like "45 minute threat" and those ever elusive WMD. They wouldn't approach within a ballistic missile shot of UNSC with anything even remotely resembling "regime change".

Following a number of reports from US administration that recently proved wrong (WMD, Al-Kaeda in Iraq, 90% enriched uranium in Iran), I just don't know what to make of it. Is there some truth behind them, or is it another questionnable intelligence or some kind of a diversion ploy?

From what I can recall of the times before the invasion, the Bushes corp was hard set on invasion several months before it began and I doubt that anything short of Saddam's offering immediate and unconditional resignation would have stopped them.

You, big lovers of democracy still aren't getting it, or just being "deliberately obtuse"? It's not up to me, nor up to you, to tell what kind of government Iraq should have. Then, - bs; - Checkhoslovakia; Hungary; Poland; Estonia; Lithuania; and many more; - there can't be a link for something that never existed; - see above + perhaps you wanted (but forgot) to qualify that by "holding elections" you mean "holding elections in the country occupied by foreign troops and under their puppet government"? - see my earlier posts; - try working on spelling "Mesopotamia". - probably factually incorrect and definitely irrelevant; - see my earlier post;

So, let's go ahead and "liberate" them even if it's against their will? (Note that the topic started with an episode in the UK, not Afganistan. If you believe that someone is oppressed without recourse in countries such as UK or Canada, you should provide some evidence).

OK, no I'm not going to reply to your BS (it's not worth the time) but here's some brief factual statements for your future reference: - UNSC never "authorized" anyone to remove "evil dictator" in Iraq. You can go spend megabytes playing word twisters but it just isn't worth my time. - Any number of nations were successful in removing their own evil dictators without outside interference. That proves that self liberation is in fact possible. - There was never any request from legitimate Iraqi national government or representative, to the US, to invade and liberate them (note that no relevant links were provided). - The above proves that no one has authorized or asked the US to create democracy in Iraq; that it was solely their (US administrations) decision, in which people of Iraq played no part whatsoever; and that your pathetic attempt to stick them in to justify the invasion is, in fact, as incredible and pathetic as it looks. - Now that US created these volatile and unstable conditions, I do not know what would be the best path to follow. Nor, I imagine, do any number of highly learned pundits. So there's nothing wrong with being honest. Now answering you trickster question, I would US to stay away from Iraq (i.e. leave them alone) and save Iraqis the trouble of being helped in establishing their own government. There, it can't be made any clearer, can it? - Finally, because, as per above, the US took it entirely upon themselves to invade a country and control it, the time is ticking for them and not for the Iraqi people whose nation existed long before the US and will probably last long thereafter. Nearly four years of destruction, anarchy, death, corruption as a direct result of someone's mindless action is more than enough to pass the judgement. Whatever happens in the future has little to do with that.

As the Iraq fiasko clearly shows, these grandiousous schemes may only exist in the alternative reality. The americans will eventually realize that, down X trillion $$ and several thousnad lives of their compatriots.

And again, the result cannot (and should not) be held reflective of the lack of opportunity. You should know: every male has the opportunity to pursue a certain female. But only few will succeed.

Er, volunteers? Anyone?

Sorry, I don't have forever to go over who said what. The question was very clear: who has the authority to set up "democracies" outside their own borders. Good that you recognize that - for the record. That an interesting interpretation, even as twisted interpretations go. Perhaps you can elaborate (or provide one of the famous links) where exactly did the UNSC authorised the US "to remove" that "evil dictator"? Interesting - Iraqi people themselves. What then US administration was doing there in the first 8-12 months after invasion - picking daisies? And no doubt, its the Iraqi people themselves who appointed the provisional government that run the elections? Then, the real question is, if it's the Iraqi themselves, how did the US troops ended up there in the first place? There was any number of "people" in the recent years who got rid of their governments without outside interference (e.g. most of Eastern Europe), they did not require full scale foreign invasion to achieve that. And even if we believed you for a second, there must have been something from the "Iraqi people" to invite the liverators in. Is there a link for that? I've no comments there. US started the mess, now it's out of our hands whatever way it goes. God themselves may not know where it all end up. By invading, Bushes robbed Iraqi people of the opportunity to sort the things out themselves, on their own terms and within their own timeline. It is clear that expectation of instant and glorious setting of democracy was a great delusion. That is the only thing that needs to be proven. Whether it eventually turns out to follow democratic path, or fall under religious authoritarianism, or even split in sevaral parts is very much out of US hands and is left for the history to sort out. The Bushes must be held responsible for the results of their mindless policy.

Right. There's also any number of articles, rallies and religious cermons with, for, and by muslims against terrorism and violence, as a simple search of Web and media archives can confirm. But you're looking for something more, if I understand correctly? Some uttermost absolute mainstream condemntation. Just trying to understand what it looks like. An example would help.

Ha-ha, I'm really impressed! You make a bling comment about someone, but are oh so deeply offended when the same is tentatively asked of you? How cute - and pathetic. Just like the rest of your argument (one muslim = all Muslims and so one). Nothing there.

What about when US napalmed villages in Vietnam? Families executed by the troops? Did we see that famous condemnation, by the "mainstream" community? Has anyone, ever seen it? Can you give us, perhaps, some examples to illustrate what you mean?

Left wingers who didn't want the invasion to take place and now want the US to withdraw and leave Iraq to anarchy. Kerryites. On the authority of a changed US government run by what they think will be a party that will take a different course. No, I can't comprehend that sophisticated message, can you try again? Who in this world has the authority to set up "democracies" outside of their borders and by force? If the Bushes & Co took it upon themselves, they failed miserably, as they did before on countless occasions. Obviously, because they do not really understand what democracy is and means. What else is there to prove?

Are you speaking of yourself? BTW the cleric who made the comments has been suspended by his mosque. That's a lot stronger and infinitely quicker action than Catholic's church dealing with pedofile priests.

Who exactly is there "to afford" the opportunity? Can you elaborate? And on what authority?

What is the meaning of "mainstream community"? In what context do you expect condemnation to be made? When US bombed a family wedding in Iraq, was there a condemnation by the "mainstream Christian community"?

It pays to have the radio on while eating your breakfast on Saturday mornings (tuned to the CBC Radio 1). One can learn amazing things about this country. This time, on the House, they brougt up the topic of "the safe third country" agreement with the US. Apparenly, the agreement has been in effect for about a year and the first review is in order. One result was significant reduction in refugee claims (by 25% if I got it right). Another one, to which the bulk of the section was given, was that for a certain group of people (such as e.g. asylem seekers from Columbia) the agreement meant that they end up with no refuge because the US does not grant them the status as a matter of common practice (I believe the rate of positive decisions was around 20%). Here the wonders begin. Without attempting to judge validity of any claim, here's the situation as I understand it: if one's claim has been turned down by the US, they cannot seek asylim in this country, and will be turned back if they attempt to enter or claim at the border. So, is it the end? No, it's not the end. Apparently, one only has to find that "unmarked crossing" and enter Canada illegally. Then, make it to the immigration office and claim. You think that would get them arrested for illegal entry? Sent back to the states on the first train? Not so, according to the program. Rather (surprise, surprise) the claim is accepted! Hoards of lawyers helped by strong infusion of taxpayer dollars get to business writing applications, communications and appeals. The wheels of the immigration machine set in its (painfully slow) motion. Everyone's happy. So, to summarize: you follow the law - you get sent back to your country without a buck in your pocket and possibly, with a real danger to your life; you break the law - and you get rewarded with worry free existence on taxpayers account for the years to come while the machine goes through its ostensibly infinite cycles. This is not the only wonder of our immigration system as I understand it. A similar situation, as I recall from another program, happens with skill immigration, i.e.: if one has skills (and hard earned savings), they can submit application, pay couple of grand in misc application fees and wait up to outrageous 3 years (which was recently reduced to less outrages 18 - 24 months) to, on successful outcome, finally come to this country; or, if someone else does not have the skills, or savings, or just doesn't feel like waiting, they can buy a tourist trip (for a half of the cost), wait a week to get the visa and claim refuge on the first stop in Canada. Wonder never ends. I just want do add one disclaimer as it's already been a long message. The above is my interpretation of at least two different radio programs and while I honestly believe it is correct, I can't guarantee it's complete or claim that it reflects actual situation with these cases. All corrections and/or any additional information are highly appreciated.

The "conundrum" only exists in your head. Any rational person, whether of left or right politically minded, can understand the difference between a whacko saying idiotic things and the general group of people the whacko happens to belong to.