jbg

A better interpretation would be that the US, UK, Israel, Australia et. ano. are democracies doing their level best to protect their people and a standard of living built by their people over generations. People forget that historically the desert raiders have gotten what they have by grabbing what they could from travellers and traders needing to pass through areas they control. The transition to modern "terrorism" from Barbary Coast piracy is not a long one. Why do you accept their more or less arbitrary carve-ups into meaningless secret groups. Other similar groups have attacked the US, and the Hezbollah people danced in the street on September 11.

I wouldn't call a pizza parlor attack, attack on a synagogue, or 911 particularly targeted as to the victims.

Why do you, or anyone, side with the people that want you dead? You're not exempt from their wrath because, jeeze, you're a nice Canadian. Come on. Give your head a shake.

I was not always happy as a child. When I was about 10, I asked my father why the Declaration of Independence, which promises "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" didn't guarantee I'd be happy. He explained that it meant that people have the right to try to make themselves happy. Government's role is not as professional shrink, nor should it be.

Sure, if the US can man a continent-wide security perimeter.

More on the religion of pieces. It seems that the Lebanese and Pakistanis, outside their countries, had exciting days in Perth, Australia and Seattle, Washington: In Perth, Australia, PM Howard, for having the temerity (link) to support Israel, had his car attacked by a Lebanese mob. See excerpts below (apparently, they miss the irony in the sentence underlined and bolded below: ============================================================== Things turned deadly in Seattle, when a Pakistani decided he'd had enough of the Jews (link) . Excerpts below:

Not htis past one.

Bi-elections don't take a lot of time. If he had resigned, Harper could have called an election immediately and he could have been in the job in a few weeks. If he won... By your measures, Newmarket-Aurora (for the uninitiated Stronach's riding) needed a bi-election, oh, in May 2005.

I can't see a deal happening either. It didn't happen in Biblical times and won't now. Solomon won, then Nebachednezzer (sp) won, then the Macabees won..... then Ben Gurion, Moshe Dayan, Ariel Sharon won. It will never end at the bargaining table. Ever.

As you know by now it's my position that Rice didn't belong there in the first place.

He could have done that immediately after resigning from the Liberal rather cross the floor. He can still do it now. He has shown a contempt for the riding that will be hard to dismiss later on. Even people who voted Conservative there are not happy with him. Bi-elections take time. Frankly, IMHO he was well-known enough that he was elected as David Emerson, not necessarily David Emerson - LPC.

This article in the New York Sun, excerpted below, casts douts on the varlous claims that Israel intended to target the UN or was indifferent. It seems that the UN post allowed Hezbollah to take liberties with the post's protected status. Hezbollah knows well how to hide behind women, children and innocent outsiders to immunize itself from attack. Maybe those outsiders need to cease their cooperation. ===================================================================== Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Jul 27, 2006; Section:Front Page; Page:1 Annan’s Claims On Casualties May Unravel By BENNY AVNI Staff Reporter of the Sun UNITED NATIONS — An apparent discrepancy in the portrayal of events surrounding the deaths of four unarmed U.N. observers in Lebanon threatens to unravel Secretary-General Annan’s initial accusation that Israel “deliberately” targeted the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon. A Canadian U.N. observer, one of four killed at a UNIFIL position near the southern Lebanese town of Khiyam on Tuesday, sent an e-mail to his former commander, a Canadian retired majorgeneral, Lewis MacKenzie, in which he wrote that Hezbollah fighters were “all over” the U.N. position, Mr. MacKenzie said. Hezbollah troops, not the United Nations, were Israel’s target, the deceased observer wrote. *snip* Mr. MacKenzie, who after retiring from the Canadian military became a politician, had a very different interpretation. “I happen to know” the nowdeceased Canadian U.N. observer, Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, Mr. MacKenzie told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in a radio interview yesterday. “We’ve received e-mails from him a few days ago and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position ‘for tactical necessity — not being targeted,’” Mr. MacKenzie said he wrote. In one such e-mail, obtained by The New York Sun, Hess-von Kruedener wrote about heavy IDF artillery and aerial bombardment “within 2 meters of our position.” The Israeli shooting, he added, “has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.” The correspondence between the trooper and former commander amounted to “veiled speech in the military,” Mr. MacKenzie, who once commanded the U.N. troops in Bosnia, told the CBC. “What he was telling us was Hezbollah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them, and that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the U.N. They use the U.N. as shields knowing that they cannot be punished for it.” *snip*

The icing on the cake would be if Emerson could take this riding, running openly and cleanly, as a Conservative.

The United States gave significant aid to the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930's, during the Depression. Now the area is in the midst of an oil boom, and yes, the revenues do help the national defense, and other areas of the country. A word on my personal loyalty. My ancestors came to this country between the early 1890's and 1900, roughly. Some may have come a few years later. They were Jews. The Russian peasant mobs were breaking into houses, beating and killing us. We were fortunate to have a country to welcome us that didn't care what religion we were, cared only what we could bring to the table. I am reading, right now, a treatise written by the family of my tennis partner. His ancestors were still in Germany during the 1930's. After Kristallnacht (a terrible German police riot against the Jews) they fled to Australia, and to the US. The people that didn't make it out died. So yes, I am loyal and indeed patriotic towards the countries that gave my people a chance at survival, and cared what they could do, not who they are. How well would democracy work if any given state/province, city, or county, or part of any of those could leave when the economic trends favored them, and either come back or seek what would now be "international" assistance when things went the other way. What if oil drops back to $9 USD?

I agree. Natives who demand huge settlements for archaic treaties are, by definition, not reasonable. IMO, they are extremely greedy people looking to cash in on a genetic lottery ticket that they don't deserve. The First Nations did not develop the land. I believe that demanding land, in improved condition, for what had been undeveloped land is a shakedown. They should be offered all of "their" land back, on a silver platter; if they pay for the improvements, up front.

I'm an American. I feel very differently about patriotism. Our country was stitched together with the blood, sweat and tears of those who fought for independence initially, and then fought for the liberty of all English-speaking people. It is not for Americans to say that our country is articificial. Your reality may be different, so end of rant. That's a different story. That should be renegotiated.

Sleepless in 24 Sussex?

Most countries don't have a province like Quebec spends huge sums of money on programs that no other province has (i.e. $7/day daycare and duplicated tax bureaucracy) and then claims that there is not enough money to pay for essential services like health and education.The fiscal imbalance is a myth created by Quebec politicians. Alberta, economically, could be a nation. Quebec cannot be one, any more than the so-called "independent" nations such as Pakistan, Congo or Zaire are nations. Quebec and Alberta have opposite difficulties of nationhood, then. Alberta speaks the same language as its surrounding "provinces" and has a similar culture. Its problem is that it has historically been treated as a colony, to be economically tapped. Quebec on the other hand insists on the trappings of nationhood, and wants others to pay. Much the way a 16 year old wants his own car. The difference is that 16 year old will eventually become 26 and will be able to afford the next one on his own. Quebec never will have that capacity. Alberta's problem is perhaps soluable within Canada, since Canada will be much the poorer without it. Quebec, on the other hand, will either have to lower its standard of living, or economically liberalize, something that is culturally anathema to Francophone culture. And I, as an American,don't know whether Quebeckers or other Canadians will make that choice.

Oh, you mean the CPC isn't using United Jewish Appeal to do Canadian government advertising and taking a 10% rakeoff?

Exactly. Hezbollah sent the attackers into Israel. They don't like the retribution. Cry me a river.

That should be supply troops. Will ask moderator to fix header. I think that no Western country should agree to send human shields to spare Hezbollah. Time for those rats to be terminated with extreme prejudice.

Clinton did his own tax increase. Luckily it didn't damage incentive too badly. That actually created much of the "surplus". Also, I'm not sure if "disaster relief" was counted in the budget figures, but Clinton was overly generous with that expenditures. By the way, this made Bush Jr. look bad after Katrina, even though the money Clinton gave New Orleans to rebuild the levies was diverted.

I dunno. His cuts set the stage for big surpluses in the Clinton years. If he had six more months, he might have had both the war and the economy on his side. Timing is everything in politics. Bush Sr. had some bad timing when it came to his second term bid. Except that old-school, i.e. Red Tory, Republicans always seem to have "bad luck"; Hoover, Eisenhower (towards the end, when the post WW II and Korea boom fizzled), Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr. The laissez faire and/or neo-cons seem to have good luck with the economy; Theodore Roosvelt, Harding, Coolidge, Reagan and Bush Jr. (stock market is near record levels despite gripes, inflation relatively low, and unemploymnet relatively low). Except for Carter and the end of the Johnson years, Democrats seem to have fairly good "luck" on economy. I think the worst mixture, then, are the big-government Republicans.

Not really. Bush Sr. slammed the brakes too hard, and for no reason. Typical of old-school, i.e. Red Tory, Republicans rather than neo-cons.

Neo-cons are not, in general, so-cons. He basically did not push their agenda, though he made some noises. So-cons are generally unelectable in the US. Wrong. He introduced a big tax cut in 1981 which was partially rolled back in 1982. The 1986 bill was revenue-neutral. His term ended in January 1989. The tax increase was a take-back of about 1/3 of the tax cut a year earlier, and the deficits were dropping by the time he left office.