Figleaf

Japan has a constitution that specifically restricts the size and role of its military force.If the Palestinians had credibly agreed to even less than this, the Israelis may well have given up the West Bank. You seem to be incompletely informed about the terms and conditions applicable to Palestine in the final rounds of negotiation. The restrictions, losses, and controls proposed went far beyond a cap on military size. I also wonder what your answer to the OP would be.

You put that in strange terms, but it's not the topic here anyway. That puts it rather too mildly, as I think you know. It's illegal under international law as it stands today. Do I take you to mean, however, that there is no basis for Israel to claim part of the West Bank in a peace settlement?

I didn't read the chain of events, I did a word search on 'asshole'. Stick to the point: Why did you say she called you an asshole when she did not?? Because I want to know why you said she called you that when she didn't. I hate posters making up crap about eachother that isn't true. It interferes with discussion and taints the whole forum.

Alright, that was funny.

"Man" created 'God'. Touche! How did I miss that one? Come to think of it, how did both of us miss this one? "Man" `created` 'God'.

When you say 'Arabs' there, which do you mean? The Arabs whose families had lived in that territory for generations, or the armies of Arab state governments. I think history confirms it was the latter, not the former. ? ? What support would you offer for that assertion?

"Man" created 'God'.

Those of you who hold this view, are you aware that it is contrary to international law? If you are aware, how do you reconcile that position?

If we have an interest in seeing him treated humanely, how would we draw the line that allows him to be incarcerated (at age 15) without trial? I always thought we lived in a free society, where a person's opinions, no matter what, were permitted. And we only punished someone for their actions and only when those actions were wrongful. So far, Khadr is accused of killing someone in a firefight. The rights and wrongs of that alleged action, in a criminal justice sense, are anything but clear. When he is released, I see no reason to treat him any differently from other Canadian citizens -- judge him by his deeds, he's entitled to his opinions.

Funny the Search function can't turn up any evidence of that. Care to explain? I'm sure you'll jump to her defence anyway, but I will show you the post in question: More than one infraction, can you count them all? The only instance of the word 'asshole' I could discern was in post #30 on that page. The specific quote is: Which is not remotely the same thing as 'calling you' an asshole. So if that is what you were refering to, then you're strangely mistaken. As for jumping to her defence, your complaint is utterly unfounded, so I'm proud and happy to defend against it. No, it's not against the rules, although it IS discouraged. How is it you got the impression she was referng to you? Do you not read the posts you react to?

Decade? No, less than that. What a difference just one very terrible president can make. Think bigger figleaf. During Clinton's terms, many U.S. government properties were attacked, and 9/11 was plotted and partially carried out before (the terrorists were already in the U.S.) Bush came to power. As was the first WTC attack. Same was true before Clinton, going back several decades really. It's not whether you are being attacked that makes you weak, it is how you can deal with it. Bush's bad strategies have reduced American power and influence, and have encouraged US enemies. Bush's loses represent a diminishment in kind, not merely quantity, of US power. .

Funny the Search function can't turn up any evidence of that. Care to explain?

Would it surprise you that most of Israel's early support came from the Left? It was only with the invention of a "national" group, the Palestinians that left-wing sentiment swung against Israel. No, it was only when Israel obviously became an oppressor in violation of international law.

I have one simple question about past and future negotiations: In principle, why should Israel be allowed to keep ANY of the West Bank?

I would have thought that would be glaringly...nay, startlingly...obvious to even the most obtuse and sedentary armchair general. Do you really have no answer to your own question? Seemingly you have no answer -- at least none you cared to share in preference to launching peurile slights. Why DO you post here? Anyway, what is increasingly obvious is that there is a hawkish whispering/media stealth campaign to build Iran into the big villain of the day. The hawks responsible seem to have little sense or sensitivity to the rhymes and reasons of international realities and so their campaign continues to produce such easily puncturable miscues as Iran arming the Taliban, or drug growers in pickup truck amounting to government convoys. The only people who buy into such crap are the ignorant or those ideologically predisposed. The funny thing is, you'd think it would be enough to paint Iran with things it is really known to do ... detentions without trial, religiously motivated repression, torture of prisoners, intervention in the internal affairs of other countries in the region, ... Hm... maybe there would be too much irony in criticising them for those things.

Bingo. The sheer ease with which a terrorist who cares not for escape or his life could kill dozens of people in a spectacular way makes a mockery of the ludicrous ineffectuality of the supposed 'enhanced security' our governments have been playing about with. Rent a pickup truck, put a barrel or two of gasoline in the back and drive it into a bus or a theatre lobby. Film it all with a cellphone and slap it on YouTube with a jihadist soundtrack and you've struck your blow for Allah! Or poison a civic water supply (which are usually totally unprotected). Or empty a bagful nuts and bolts out of a tall building over a busy street. Or attack a daycare with axes (three workers and a dozen little kids aren't much a challenge if you bring a couple of determined jihadis and have the element of surprise). Or dress up like contractors and pump carbon monoxide into an apartment building or nursing home for a few hours late some winter night. My point is this ... none of the security measures we've rolled out so far would do anything to prevent such attacks. And they never will. So, why aren't we seeing slaughter such as this on an ongoing basis? If there is nothing stopping our implacable, fanatical, remorseless, suicidal, freedom-hating enemies, why haven't they done these things yet? Answer: Maybe they aren't all they are cracked up to be.

Decade? No, less than that. What a difference just one very terrible president can make.

Dion has time to make it work out. Steve and the gang will be held to a minority at best in the next election, so Dion will be safe for the next election, win or loose. If he doesn't get a good showing next election, the Liberals will nevertheless allow him another try.

Naw, what they are is trying to fit in with their surroundings. When you're a minority in a country, it's a lot easier to just echo what is being said, even if it's against your own people, then to try to stand up against it. That doesn't hold water, given the plethora of people who are obvioulsy quite free to stand on the other side of that issue and be as vocal as they please. Indeed, if anything, among Jewish people it is more likely that the opinions expressed by the boycotters will bring them vilification than full-on support for Israel would. No, it seems much more likely that they are reflective people whose consciences direct their choices, rather than prejudices, partisanship or peer pressure. Good, wise people who I applaud.

I can't wait for Michael Bluth to give us the scoop on this from inside the CPC. Is Steve responsible, or is it some jumped-up underlings?

I find it frankly horrifying that a majority of people in the world's supposed leading liberal democracy can be so devoid of reason.

X being catastrophic is not a rational justification for Y (which is less catastrophic). Why on Earth not? Your choice is between terrible and merely bad. Unless you can convincingly assign some probabilities to one outcome or the other, acting to avoid the worst is rational. Comparative merit. Not really. Take two random outcomes that I'll pick kind of like he did... killing 100 babies or just 50. Obviously killing 50 is comparatively better. Is that the morally correct choice then? That horror of killing 100 babies justifies me killing 50? If the defined consequence of not killing 50 babies is that 100 babies are killed, then as horrible as the choice is, it seems to me that it is better that 50 die rather than 100. This argument does not fall into that fallacy. The fallacy requires that double conditions fail to exclude eachother, however in this case they are sufficiently distinct. Nice try though.

Why are you importing such references? I have no interest in indulging your anti-semitic urges.

At some point, when your urge to contradict reason and good sense overwhelms you, I predict you will indeed claim to know more about Britney Spears, chemicals, road construction, plumbing or geology than someone else. And you will be as right about that as you are in your self-aggrandizing about those other subjects. I think I'll just save this URL for the occassion. Now, back to the subject that you were so eager to derail... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Iran's leadership. Cunning. If you believe they are working toward nuclear arms (you do, don't you?), then it is obvious that they are succeeding. Has anyone so far been able to stop them? No, so, they are succeeding, which required cunning. Furthermore, they now have their implacable enemy Saddam laid low, and are watching their fellow shiites take over Iraq and stymie the 'Great Satan' USA.

There, there, ScottSA. Of course you do. And you know more about plumbing than I do, and more about fishing, and more about Marx, and more about road construction, and more about publishing, and more about geology, and more about Britney Spears, and more about the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission, and more about Thai food, and more about chemicals, and more about all sorts of things you imagine you are brilliant at. There is, in truth, no field in which you are not a genius and an expert. If only you were less selfish, you would have saved the world by now. Oh well.