Figleaf

K

S

[herwise.

I would think you should be looking at the same thing happening on the Canadian side of the border. Under first Chretian and then Martin our freedoms were quickly deteriorating, even though both of these leaders were definitely anti-American. Under a Liberal government they were willing to allow the appointed, unaccountable Supreme Court looneytoon judges to have the last word on everything in this country, and both Chretien and Martin said so publically. I don't know about you, but if these clowns are going to be making decisions that affects the way we live our lives as Canadians, then I want those people to be elected to office so that they can not only be held responsible for their decisions, but we the people can fire their asses. Canada a democracy? What fairytale have you been reading? If having judges hold a final say on interpreting the law is a problem, then it is a problem virtually every mature democracy has instituted, including the United States. So, what do you think would be better? Putin's Russia?

..

..

[

no good reason to participate anymore

:

It just so happens that every religion you knock is made up of non-whites. Which reminds me of an anecdote someone once told on this forum: how did that go? Gee, that couldn't be because the whole world, outside Europe is non-White could it? Oh, I'm pretty sure it could.

ll

k

What is the American record when it comes to pasting allied forces by mistake? A bit troubling, perhaps: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=am...earch&meta=

"if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel." "they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment." Hassan Hasrallah I think you missed my point. I don't deny that the rhetoric exists, I merely suggest that the conclusions the Bush-Likud propagandists urge be drawn from it are a trap. It is a trap because their response to that rhetoric is the wrong one, as I believe I addressed somewhat above.

OH WELL, alright then! As long as it's only a FEW tens of thousands. That sounds almost relaxing ... killing a mere few tens of thousands -- like doing nine holes rather than a full eighteen. Delightful. I say, could you sponsor my application into your club?

.

[

1- Guts in your face? I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but even taken literally, I fail to see how that qualifies you as a clear-thinker on this issue. 2- I would say that the very point of my analysis is to avoid the black/white absolutist confusion that permeates the Bush-Likud thinking on this topic. Unfortunately, getting angry is all you do. You didn't refute Black Dog with facts or logic, you merely denigrated his opinion and claimed to know better. Sorry, but that's not good enough. Please be assured that my erudition is displayed only to irritate you, never because it comes naturally, or that it represents my actual self. No! My apparent ability to write a clear sentence, to draw fact and argument together, to turn a clever phrase is all an act! In truth I am a drooling idiot, merely posing as someone capable of carrying on discussions. Let me try this out on you ... that's the same logic Islamic Jihad etc. uses to justify suicide bombings of civilian targets. "Finish" what, exactly? There is no "finish". Israel DID occupy Lebannon and in that regard Hezbollah WAS a freedom fighting force. I don't think I have ever said Hezbollah is an innocent victim. I think you should be more careful with what you impute to others. Prior to this recent flare up Israel and Hezbollah each had several complaints with the other. The difference between you and I is that you automatically accept the Israeli complaints and automatically reject any complaints against it. I, on the other hand accept or reject them from any side based on their valididy. It is not for you to arrogantly demand what I should state or concede. However, for your information: 1 - In my view Israeli's constitute a people entitled to the same rights of self-determination as any other people. Theylike any other people, they have the right not to be driven from their homes, transported against their wishes either individually or en masse, or to be molested or killed. They have used their self-determination to constitute a state which is a legitimately thiers. So based on all the forgoing, irrespective of claims made for or against the legitimacy of Israel's creation, TODAY the removal or 'eradication' of Israel could only be accomplished by severe and criminal violations of human rights and international law. Ergo, Israel has the right to exist. 2 - Hezbollah would not be engaged in conflict with Israel if Israel had not occupied Lebanon. In fact, it would not exist if Israel had not occupied Lebanon. Israel has no business claiming to be 'defending' itself when it is defying international law by bombing civilian infrastructure remote from the theatre of operations, by attacking neighboring states, and by its long-running illegal occupation of the Palestinians. Unfortunately your sensitivities are preventing you from hearing this. ... it sounds to you like a moral harangue, but try to hear it as a practical critique for a moment. Bullsh*t. Watch yourself ... imputations of this kind are very discourteous. For good or ill, the UN's mandate is really only inter-state issues. It is therefore inapproriate to criticise it for not placing emphasis on internal atrocities.

You mean the Bush-Oil regime, naturally?

;;

I personally feel that this emphasis on the 'wipe them off the map' thing is a rhetorical trap that Israel's leaders have fallen into. They've internalized their propaganda, so to speak. Reality check for Israeli leaders: OF COURSE YOUR ENEMIES WANT TO WIPE YOU OUT ... THAT'S WHAT ENEMY MEANS The challenge of statecraft is to get beyond that. That's a difficult challenge for sure. My prescription is you start by avoiding counter-productive things like bombing your neighbors willy-nillly, or inserting settlers on other peoples' land. Then, you cure any just grounds of complaint that your enemies have, and THEN you demand they do the same. Then you defend yourself determinedly against their extremist fringe for a generation until those attitudes peter out. Maybe the problem there is that they actually, really don't have the right to break international law. Wow, what a concept.

Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker writer had an article this month saying that the war in Lebanon was going to be used as an excuse to hit Iran. The war ended sooner than the plan could unfold. It's no wonder Iran would want a nuclear deterent themselves, eh?

Outrageous. The very idea that some people think a nuclear attack is a remotely conceivable notion is shocking.

[

Part of the point I was trying to make is that the reflective process Israeli citizens are demanding should go well beyond the narrow focus on military short-falls. I would suggest that underlying the Israeli public's demand for answers is an inchoate recognition that their leadership over decades has failed them, not in military strategy, but in diplomatic vision.