gnam

You have got to be kidding. You are not aware of the Israel lobby? These are real people. You've made yourself look very ignorant over this. Israel is not a race... it's a state. You've made yourself look very racist over this.

Sorry man, but this is totally retarded... Not your fault mind you, you're just dating yourself a bit... harking back to the good old days when communism was the big scary monster. Anyway, it doesn't work that way anymore. I have lived in Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan, and China, for 1 yr or more in each country over the past ten, not to mention studied their cultures, politics, and economies fairly thoroughly. The fact is that in all of those countries, except china, their economies have generally converted to consumer based economies (like ours) and China is the only one left with any real manufacturing muscle. Both Taiwan and S. Korea are both major consumers whose manufacturing industries are going down the toilet... and japan? don't be fatuous! The global economic trick for maintaining the staus quo has to do with how to ensure that the Chinese don't switch to a consumer (middle class) economy. In short, it is better for us if they remain a worker's state... dig? You (by this I mean we) might be able to squeeze the same value out of the african continent but never the productivity--too unstable short of some imperialistic homogenizing force--and so the Chinese human rights violations are the very things that keep the chinese in line, working, and keeping our (and our U.S. buddies) consumer based economies strong. Just try cutting trade with the Chinese... yer 400$ Armani shoes (see, for example any 'made in' label @armeni emorium, a top quality designer where most things are made in china) are gonna cost $1400 in order to maintain profit margins.. and our stock portfolio investments will dictate that the margins must be maintained. Oh, and yer $10 walmart t-shirts will cost $50 (see American apparel--a clothing chain who claims to avoid the use of sweatshop labor). Not interested in textiles? Maybe you like automotive... The Chinese are about to release a retail automobile in the N. American market with a price tag under $10,000. This will be the lowest automobile pricing since the 1980's. Quality??? Yeah that really hurt the Japanese and Korean entrance into the N. American market in the 70's... check the big losers... u.s. auto manufactureres with no business plan that peers further into the future than the next business quarter!! What a bunch of suckers... hmm buy chevy right?? riiiggghhhttt... While you might think there is a better place on the planet to have OUR manufacturing taken care of you would be mistaken. Prominent Japanese business men have been known to say to me: "Any business the Chinese are getting into, I am getting out of!" This is because their (the Chinese) political system and labour resources (closely related to economic system and strict social controls that we call human rights) dictates that no one on the planet can compete with them in the production of cheap goods. WE HAVE A VESTED/ING ECONOMIC INTEREST in maintaining the politico-economic status quo in the 'people's republic of China' and in maintaining its political/economic practices. You depend on the Chinese political system (and others like it) for your way of life... so turn pinko or shut up---and, while we're on the subject (sort of), reign in your pitbull (Harper) since folks like you, presumably, are the ones who elected him. Hmm... Cut off trade with the Chinese entirely?? Sounds like a great idea for collapsing the economies of the west... great idea Comrade! Where do I sign up for the revolution? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... -cough-

Agreed... someone has put this to a vote. Having collected results... what are those results meant to determine? I live in Canada and have lived near or worked with some native people who were in varying cases and degrees, rich/poor, good/bad, asshole/really-nice, drunk/sober, etc. However, none of these simple dichotomies expresses the realities of life for the majority of aboriginal people, nor do they get at anything interesting... they are the most basic ways of classifying people and are boring and useless... unless there is some better interpretation. Anyone?? Is this string going anywhere??

My advice... smoke weed, take hallucinogens, love art, read peotry... in many ways they are all very similar. The Big problem with modern technological society (see G. Grant for elucidations on the nature of Technology, Empire, and Justice) is the loss of poetry... really, there is no smoking necessary. However, one (all) must learn to think outside of instrumental reason from within it. I am not saying that the poster's poetry is good or bad... but then we aren't even in a position to have that discussion. Poetry doesn't even register with us modern liberals (again see Grant for further discussion of the term 'liberal'), and as such, we are in a prior position in which we moderns must relearn poetry. My vote is that we start with a discussion of Form and Content in the work of art... or maybe we could begin with Heidegger's "Origin of the Work of Art," or, WTF, why not just start with the genesis(es) of western civilization... both the teachings of the Talmud and Plato + pre-socratics on art... any takers??

WOOOOOOO fuckin HOOOOOO please greg, let us have an arts, poetry and philosophy section.... please, please, please!!!! The politics, religion, and morality are, of course indispensible... however, following Kant, if we are to have a true Can-Culture site it would seem remiss not to add the aesthetics category... no??

I can see why you would have a problem here. But I don't see why the problem should have anything to do with what Cohen is up to. I don't see how awareness and sophistication have anything to do with anti-semitism. Rather, anti-semitism seems to be the very height of closed-minded stupidity. If it is not the case that we, as viewers and as a society, regard anti-semetic points of view as vulgar, stupid, detestable, and laughable for these very qualities then the joke is on us as a people. Indeed this seems to be part of Cohen's point, to suggest that N. American (or Western Liberal if you prefer a terminology that encompasses Westen Europe as well) culture is somehow more progressive or advanced than those in other parts of the world is shown up for the trite self-congratulatory nonsense that it is. Cohen encourages us to have a look at our our own cultures and see them for the frauds they are. At any rate, we aren't talking about some obscure ivory tower artistic theory when we try to deal with biggotry, sexism, and anti-semitism, thus Cohen's material doesn't fall prey to the kind of anti post-modern critique I think you are employing here. It seems to me that when the audience is laughing with the anti-semites rather than at them, Cohen's film must be seen as a critique of our societies, and by extension of ourselves. This is the part that should worry us and cause problems for us, that we aren't entirely sure that our society, the one for which we all share in the responsibility for its creation and re-creation, has done what it promised... to create a free, equal, just and enlightened kind of a society. In other words, Cohen seems to show us all up for the vile bunch of yahoos Jonathon Swift, one of the great modern satirists, suggested we might really be in his seminal work Gulliver's Travels. Insofar, as we are a simply a bunch of people sitting around laughing at anti-semites from some other culture or period in history, we are either perfect or diverting ourselves from the real problems of the day. Unfortunately for us and the problems of anti-semitism, bigotry, sexism, etc, I think that niether of the latter two possibilities is the case. At any rate, I found Cohen's film quite funny, but like you BD, I continue to find it quite disturbing.

Actually, what is morally (or otherwise) right for us as a nation (differentiated from the concept of 'state') of Canadians has never really been for us to make a habit of referring, in broad strokes, to entire groups of people in the derogatory, lazy, and essentially thoughtless terms Which are nevertheless true. Again, lazy and essentially thoughtless... as opposed to 'calling a spade a spade' you, instead, exhibit a preliminary knowledge of foreign people and society that is notable for its lack of nuance.

My resume notwithstanding, I'm not sure what your job has to do with your cynicism in regard to canada's international sovereignty. I agree with you that more nations included is important... note: peace talks went nowhere in the UNSC until France took some initiative in that regard. Thank goodness things didn't get left up to the United States. I have to agree with you when you say "Besides, from what I have read here most people who want our government to step in, want them to step in and support a terrorist organization. I cannot support that." Like you, I would be unwilling to support that, however, it became clear in the first few days of the conflict that Israel's tactics were ineffective and causing unacceptable civilian casualties rather than collateral damage. As such, I think many canadians were for an immediate ceasefire and not a blind allegiance to US policy and the officially released story concerning Israeli interest. In other words, I think you are misinterpreting those who wanted to see someone, whether it be Canada or not (and seeing as most of the posters are canadian there is no reason for them to call for action from anyone but their own government), step in and attempt to put an end the indiscriminate, wanton, and escalating violence. No one is suggesting that canada not utulize whatever influence it has in the UN. But why shouldn't it use the UN as a forum for developing and pushing through the policies it develops, either on its own or in conjunction with other countries. I don't think anyone really disagrees that strongly with the UN ceasefire or thinks that Canada should be a foreign affairs cowboy. Insofar as the UN ceasefire continues to be effective I don't see a whole lot of posts suggesting that Canada go ahead with some alternate plan of action. Lobbying member countries is also a good idea (we seem to agree on more than I originally thought, or was willing to admit). However, Canada needs to continue to develop foreign policy for those occasions (historically quite numerous) when the UNSC has handcuffed itself and stalled into inaction.

Harper has only echoed Bush as of late and I think you know what Bush's America is worth around the world. So it's about popularity? I don't care that unlettered savages in shithole countries, ignorant Eurotrash, and Jew-hating Arabs think the US is the great satan. I don't think we should base our positions on whether or not it places distance beween us and them. We should support what is right, morally speaking, and right for us as a nation, not try to suck up to anyone, including the Muslim block at the UN and their paid allies. And what is both morally right and right for us as a nation is to oppose the rise of Islamic hate and violence. Actually, what is morally (or otherwise) right for us as a nation (differentiated from the concept of 'state') of Canadians has never really been for us to make a habit of referring, in broad strokes, to entire groups of people in the derogatory, lazy, and essentially thoughtless terms that you seem to have no problem with. Traditionally, that practice has generally fallen to racists and anti-semites... (oops... sorry I forgot to take off my anti-irony sunglasses).

Please don't attribute your simplistic understanding of another person's position to me. Hmmm... I suppose if you had bothered to read the preceding posts you would find yourself in a better position to talk about my understanding of Hicksey's position. You should note that the point at which Hicksey most directly addressed my comments is the point at which he/she suggests that my comments look like his, "...only edited for political correctness." Thus, the logical inference here is that my understanding of Hicksey's position is dead on and anything but guilty of over-simplification. If anything he/she has charged me with obscuring what he/she takes to be the most important part of his/her position with overly ornate and ultimately superfluous language, the effect of which is meant, supposedly, to 'assuage the sensibilities of minorities and interest groups'... (in single quotes is my inference, I don't think Hicksey ever specifically charged me with that). My criticism of Hicksey's position, his resume and current means of gainful employment aside, has been that I think his recommendations culminate in an international policy position for Canada that would be characterized above all by its apathetic disposition toward global affairs, evidenced by what seems to be Hicksey's claim that Canada should cede its international policy making and brokerage rights to the UNSC. My basic concern here is that this seems to amount to an erosion of Canada's already heavily eroded national sovereignty on the N. american and global stage (As regards canada's eroded sovereignty Hicksey and I, and perhaps you, seem to be in agreement, at least in part). Additionally, I have accused him/her in his/her comments of a level of cynicism regarding Canada's international capabilities. Seeing as you culminated your previous post with a rhetorical question whose content was essentially a paraphrase of Hicksey's stated position, equivocating your two positions was, in all fairness, quite justifiable at the time. In short, you opened that door, I just walked through it. As for your initial comments: Not actually true. An empty, rhetorical gesture. Actually that is pretty much the ONLY example, and that was a generation ago. ... I will address your comments themselves before I respond to your challenge. The reason that there was no direct response to these comments is that I appealed to an understanding of canada's traditional international role that is quite commonplace for support of my position. In other words I evoked the status quo interpretation of Canada's historical international role and cited evidence, however slight that evidence may be, to support my position. Your challenges, in this case, are devoid of substance. If you are questioning the truth of an assumption that is commonly held to be true (or mostly true) then the onus is on you to outline the grounds for your incredulity. You make no effort in this post to do so. What's more, your objection to the claim that "...canada has a history of being a leader within the UN" (I assume this was the part you objected to, you were unclear on this matter) is subsequently contradicted by you a few lines later when you admit that the Pearson government's work in the Suez crisis was a true example of said leadership (even if it is the only one -though this is not my position-, you nevertheless contradict yourself). You then go on to claim that Canada's role in the UN development of its torture papers is an empty rhetorical gesture. In the first place, the extent to which Canada's role in the development of those proposals is empty depends on how effectively those policies and procedures affect the global use of torture. The efficacy of those papers remains to be seen and is, more than less, bound up in the efficacy of the UN as opposed to canada's international stature. Canada's role was simply to take the lead in developing those papers. In the second case, you offer no substantial reason or arguments for others to accept your claim that Canada's role in the development of these papers is an empty rhetorical gesture. Thus the charge 'empty rhetorical gesture', applies more to your comment than to my citation of at least one instance where canada has sought to take on a role in the brokerage of international policy. In any case, your comment is something significantly less than a rebuttal or refutation, and therefore, in the abscence of any clarification or argumentation, not deserving or conducive to a response. Hence my initial decision to delete them. I certainly will not summarize Canada's international political history here, if you are interested in that sort of reading feel free to visit any library where you will find numerous entries on the subject. However, in the spirit of open discussion and debate I will happily offer a few more pieces of evidence to support my position. Canada is currently, according to the US central intelligence agency, an active member in the following international organizations: ACCT, AfDB, APEC, Arctic Council, ARF, AsDB, ASEAN (dialogue partner), Australia Group, BIS, C, CDB, CE (observer), EAPC, EBRD, ESA (cooperating state), FAO, G-7, G-8, G-10, IADB, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt, ICFTU, ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ISO, ITU, MIGA, MINUSTAH, MONUC, NAFTA, NAM (guest), NATO, NEA, NSG, OAS, OECD, OIF, OPCW, OSCE, Paris Club, PCA, PIF (partner), UN, UNAMSIL, UNCTAD, UNDOF, UNESCO, UNFICYP, UNHCR, UNMOVIC, UNTSO, UPU, WCL, WCO, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WToO, WTO, ZC ... this suggests a very active ministry of foreign affairs, whose accomplishments, both minor and significant I am sure are well documented. In addition, while canada has been slow to act on and implement environmental standards that would certainly bolster its international credibility regarding disputes in those matters, it has nonetheless signed on to and played an important role in developing many of the following international environmental aggreements: party to: Air Pollution, Air Pollution-Nitrogen Oxides, Air Pollution-Persistent Organic Pollutants, Air Pollution-Sulfur 85, Air Pollution-Sulfur 94, Antarctic-Environmental Protocol, Antarctic-Marine Living Resources, Antarctic Seals, Antarctic Treaty, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol, Desertification, Endangered Species, Environmental Modification, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea, Marine Dumping, Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Tropical Timber 83, Tropical Timber 94, Wetlands signed, but not ratified: Air Pollution-Volatile Organic Compounds, Marine Life Conservation. By signing onto and complying with international agreements canada leads by example, exhibiting its willingness to pursue and negotiate diplomatic and treaty resolutions to international disagreements, issues, and disputes. Additionally, Canada has been a strong advocate for multilateralism over the past 60 years. Acting in the spirit of the Pearson government's peacekeeping policy canada has sought to fascilitate the honest brokerage of international disputes by serving in more than 50 peacekeeping missions, including every mission until 1989, though participation has diminished over the past few years (ref: see wikipedia reference entry on Canada). Canada's official domestic policy of multiculturalism has piqued quite a bit of interest internationally. Many countries, are looking to canada as a prototype from which to try and deal with the massive immigration problems that are currently facing Europe. Additionally, with the scheduled inclusion into the EU of a number of countries with large Muslim populations, Canada is increasingly being looked to as an international leader in dealing with minority religious groups. Much of the dialogue between the international community and canada is currently taking place at the academic level, and as such, you can view the personal website of at least one of the canadian academics who is currently involved in much of this research at http://www.ianangus.ca/. Also, the following rankings indicate that Canada retains a fairly lofty international reputation in a number of significant areas: International rankings Organization -- Survey -- Ranking A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Magazine -- Globalization Index 2005 -- 14 out of 111 IMD International -- World Competitiveness Yearbook 2005 -- 5 out of 60 The Economist -- Worldwide quality-of-life index, 2005 -- 14 out of 111 Yale University/Columbia University -- Environmental Sustainability Index, 2005 -- 6 out of 146 Reporters Without Borders -- Press Freedom Index 2005 -- 21 out of 167 Transparency International -- Corruption Perceptions Index 2005 -- 14 out of 159 The Wall Street Journal -- Index of Economic Freedom, 2006 -- 12 out of 157 Canada was ranked number one country by the United Nations' Human Development Index 10 times out of 16 between 1980 and 2004. (The preceding information came from the wikipedia entry on Canada) In other words, Canada is, by many accounts one of the top 20 leading global countries in a number of areas. Whether Canada deserves these rankings is, of course, not at issue... the point is that contrary to your claim, it is not tue that Canada has "no international reputation." Please review my previous posts. Nowhere is the phrase or sentiment "canada the Great" either explicitly or implicitly used. Not true... see above. At the very least, you must admit that your statement here is grossly exaggerated. Nowhere have I argued for this position. Please don't attribute your simplistic and largely fabricated understanding of the political position of another group of people to me. In light of the preceding comments I maintain my position that canada should continue to articulate its own positions in matters of foreign affairs in order to attempt, in its capacity, to act as an honest broker. Blindly following american policy and/or awaiting UNSC council resolutions is dangerous on a number of fronts, both nationally and internationally.

Regarding whether or not this one of the four proposed UN definitions is the best, or is better than any other available, I am unwilling to comment on that... I don't think it is of much consequence. The description of a terrorist act as a war crime committed during peace time is another proposed defintion floating around within the UN that is not necessarily a part of the first definition you referenced. Do you mean to fuse the two?? Anyway, what I do find interesting is the fact that you, a member or former member of a military organization, have admitted the point that many nations and/or political groups who currently partake in the rather fashionable trend that involves labelling their enemies 'terrorist' would qualify, upon close scrutiny of their actions (both military and private), as terrorists themselves according to their own definition. (sorry about the sentence length on that one... a bit windy). In effect this casts doubt against your attempt to build a case that suggests that Hezbollah is currently a terrorist organization by any criteria that do not simultaneously condemn many of their enemies. It is hippocritical if the label 'terrorist' constitutes the justification by which you maintain that Israel's recent actions in Lebanon are blameless. Maybe they would take up farming. In order to answer that question Israel would have to be willing to risk returning the farms. Do you claim to know what that action is? Well, the Nazis were comparatively quiet about their 'final solution,' this would rule out their inclusion as terrorists by all estimates of the nature of your definition of the term. As for the bombing targets of the Nazi's (devoid of military targets), this line of argument undermines your earlier claims about the justifiable grounds on which the americans nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, from these comments alone any defense of "shock and awe" (god I can hardly read that military strategy's name without falling out of my seat in a fit of laughter), looks to be on shaky ground. You'd have to go way out on a limb to make that connection, a man whom prided himself in becoming the best at what he was doing in this case knowly shipping millions of jews etc, to their deaths for no other reason than to rid the riech of thier kind..and justifing it because he had seen dead german civilians in a bomb shelter...and i thought it was the allieds that bombed them not the jews.. and then we compare the him to the men that involved in dropping a bomb that ended the war early and saved the lives of thousands of american soldiers.. I find it difficult to draw a similar comparison between them. I also find it difficult to believe her opinons to be unbaised, yes she was a jew, but she was also married to a man whom was investigated with war crimes. Your difficulties with Arendt have little play in light of the rather broad acclaim her report has garnered. In any case, being married to a person investigated for (and cleared on) war crimes in the wake of the Nuremberg trials is about as legitimate a condemnation as being 'investigated' for being a socialist during the MacArthy era. Whether or not I have to go out on a limb remains in question. What is certain is that I do not have to shimmy out onto the particular twig you suggest since I never attempted to equivocate Eichmann with anyone involved in the manhatten project or the subsequent decisions to bomb those above mentioned cities or carry out those missions. Rather, what I said, or meant to say at any rate, was that in order to convict Eichmann of anything for which there was credible evidence, the Israelis were required to bring him up on charges that were couched in terms so broad that those charges could equally have been applied to Americans involved in the atomic bombings in Japan. I brought this up in an attempt to suggest, by way of analogy, that the concept "terrorist" is frought with the same difficulties as those charges, that it applies to liberally and not strictly to Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Quaida, etc. You have gone one further and said yourself that, by your definition, terrorist acts have been committed on all sides of this conflict. Thus, I needn't spend any further effort on this point. The people of Lebanon have made a chioce, be it via the voting stations, or by thier support of the Hezbullah. that they approve of the hezbullah actions again'st Israel..one has to just watch thier comments on the News to suggest that a large group of lebanese approve of the hezbullah and their actions. They are both the same group of people so why is there a clear distinction when there is not. You can't have your cake and eat it to, yes we approve of your attacks on Israel, we as a nation refuse to do anything about that. Yes the Hezbullah are part of our government, yes they make up a part of our military. So in that regards lebanon is guilty of of attacks again'st Israel period. OK then, reciprocally, by your Logic, Israel and her people are guilty of attacks against Lebanon and, as such, you no longer have recourse to the complaint that Hezbollah rockets have landed in Israeli neighborhoods. In any case, you yourself have described those attacks as military (see above). Furthermore, by your logic, Lebanon should mobilize its military in order to defend its interests in this conflict. Forgive me for saying so but this line of thinking doesn't really seam conducive to the attainment of peace in the region. Rather, this line of thinking seems quite clearly to promote war, in short, this logic is the logic of the war-monger. Is it a cheap parlor trick, to fire rockets next to the same building then vacate knowing that it will draw an Israelis reaction. yes it is, but one both sides use it to thier advantage. OK, so we seem to be at an impasse as far as who is a terrorist, who has behaved well, who did what to whom, who is justified in doing what.... blah blah blah. As such, does it still seem like a bad idea to drop the 'terrorist' mudslinging? It seems clear from this discussion that to retain that concept and continue to think along the lines of the paradigm that it entails can only lead to hostilities and aggression in the region. Unless that is what is wanted, I maintain my initial position that the paradigm in which this thread has heretofor progressed should be fundamentally changed, beginning with the omission of the 'terrorist' concept, if there is to be any useful or intelligent discussion concerning stability in the middle east.

Hmmm... a little deja vu?? Oh yeah, I just had this discussion with Hicksey... And with me as well. There are enough "honest brokers", which I'd define, for your purposes, as countries that recognize and have diplomatic ties with Israel, but are fundamentally hostile to Israel retaining defensible borders or the ability to take necessary action to protect itself. huh?? Lemme get this straight... you are suggesting that I have argued somewhere from a position that is fundamentally hostile to Israel's retaining defensible borders or the ability to take the necessary action to protect itself?? Or are you saying that in your opinion 'honest brokers' are "...countries that recognize and have diplomatic ties with Israel, but are fundamentally hostile to Israel retaining defensible borders or the ability to take necessary action to protect itself??" (above) I don't understand which point you are making. As for the discussion I was involved in with Hicksey, the one in which Argus simply restates Hickseys position, the position that Canada's ability and right to generate international policy is and ought to amount to nil, I don't recall you having voiced any opinion in that matter. Can you direct me to your entry?

Hmmm... a little deja vu?? Oh yeah, I just had this discussion with Hicksey...

Actually i thought the wikipedia entry had a definition to fit just about everyone, with most of them repeating basically the same thing. But i think that the below UN version has most of the meat. This is one of four proposed definitions and not the official UN definition. The UN currently has no official definition. While this isn't a bad definition, its drawback is that it would criminalize the israeli state, in addition to hezbollah, for many of it's actions in Gaza as well as some of it's military manouvers in the latest conflict in Lebanon. Likewise, in adopting this definition of terrorism the United States, Canada, and a whole host of other western nations would thereby become terrorist states under UN law (assuming that this definition were adopted as a piece of international legislation). Then Army Guy you said: If the whole piont of this exericise is to use the provided definition in another augument to suggest that the west has also sponsored forms of terrorism or have performed War crimes in war. your right they have. history is full of examples. My response: Well, the whole point of this excercise is to show that the use of the term 'terrorist' in reference to Hezbollah is not only hippocritical, but also propagandistic because it skews one's understanding of the political situation in the area. In doing so, the political options people see as workable are narrowed to the point where military aggression is seen as the only viable policy. In other words, the use of the term makes intelligent discussion about the middle east difficult, if not impossible. Army Guy you said: But you willing go as far as saying that those definitons do not meet your standards, and if you are going to pass judgement on them then you must also be prepared to define them. My Response: Wrong I have no standards for the use of the term terrorist... Those standards you refer to are standards one must meet in the definition of any concept... I am saying that as it (the term 'terrorist') is currently defined, the term terrorist is debilitating as regards one's ability to think about the middle east with an open mind. It is a vacuous term that can be used by anyone to label any group they dislike or are opposed to, especially with respect to political groups since politics is largely about the wielding of power. I am essentially suggesting that we drop the use of the term terrorist from our middle east vocabulary, as it were. Army Guy you said: Look your obviously an educated person, myself am just a Soldier, if the UN could not come up with a workable solution do you honestly think we can ? My Response: Education has little to do with it. You are clearly not an idiot and niether you nor I are saddled with the kind of economic or political concerns and interests bourn by the UN and its member states. Since we are not beholden to a constituency or members with veto power we are free in ways that the UN is not, free to agree upon defintions of terms and then apply those definitions with ruthless consistency in our discussions and thinking. Army Guy you said: I will give you what i concieve to be a terrorist act. Cutting off the head of a soldier or civilian on tape or other media outlet to use as a threat for other gains be it polictical or what ever... That is an act of terrorism. what is not a terrorist act. The cutting off the head of a soldier in the heat of combat with a sword. when the act was not to send any message but with the only intention of slaying of the soldier. that is not a terrorist act but a brutal fact of war. Another act of terrorism. Conducting a planned cross border raid, with the intention of commiting murder of civilians, but not just killing them, but to kill them in such a way that sends a clear message to the masses and general public...such as bashing a 4 year olds head on the rocks until her life is forever lost. No that takes a special person to carry out that act...that takes a terrorist, a coward. My Response: So the key in your defintion of terrorism is that it is a message generator?? You are saying that the desire to destroy another person(s) is a justified, if brutal, act insofar as it involves soldiers on a battlefield and there is no intent, or attempt to send a message to a wider group (ie. the general public)? Makes you wonder about the US use of a strategy they termed "shock and awe." Army Guy you said: Explain how the example of Hannah Arendts is a good example. And how you tie the two together. in one example we find a man who was in charge of transporting millions to thier deaths, at one piont becoming the 'Master" his words not mine, with only one goal in mind the final solution... And in the other example we have an action that was taken to save american and allied lives by ending the war early. I have not read her works or her book on Eichmann, but from snippettes i've read she is Pro germany considering her background. My Response: You are right. I wasn't very clear on this point. The idea is that in order to brand Hezbollah as terrorist, rather than simply a militant political group, one must adopt a definition of the term that would apply equally to oneself and one's allies. Our use of the term terrorist is as frought with difficulty as the israeli charges against Eichmann. Those charges would have applied equally to americans involved in the atomic bombings and Arendt recognized this. As for Arendt herself, she was a german jew who fled to the USA when the Nazi's came to power. While she may have been a patriotic german she was about as far as anyone can get from being a Nazi sympathizer. At the end of her report, first published in the New Yorker (I think), she points out that Eichmann was a disgusting human being but that the trial of Eichmann was a farce... anyway, this is way off topic. The point is, to repeat myself, the manner in which we apply the use of the term terrorist is either to loose, such that applies to Israel as well as Hezbollah, or it is so strict that Hezbollah has a reasonable case to support its claim that it is not a terrorist group, but is simply protecting the interests of those it represents. Army Guy you said: Your right, the definition must be black and white and must apply to all ,in all circumstances, no exceptions. The definition i used is the one current used in Canada, or which is a modified version of the UN's. My Response: I assume, when you talk about the canadian definition you are reffering to bill C-36 as passed by the HOC. Again, the difficulty here is with the fact that, aside from a whole host of other problems, it is readily applicable to George Bush (in truth I don't really see charging this guy with terrorism as a real problem... that's beside the point though), the Israeli state and Hezbollah. Army Guy you said: I was not suggesting that you approved or disapproved ,the event . I think the event or what has been publish of the event is self explanatory, and does not require a whole lot of context. To most those facts although not actually stated more or less jump out at you..Why would he have killed them in this matter if not to send a much larger message. My Response: Apply this logic in lebanon. what message are the Israeli's sending to Hezbollah and Lebanese citizens when hundreds of lebanese are killed in contrast to several dozen hezbollah fighters. Army Guy you said: I not demeaning the pain and anguish that is felt by those that experiance war. As i've seen the effects of war first hand, the sights ,sounds and smells. But it is what it is, a bombing during a war in which they are a part of by they're own choice, meaning they were warned to vacate, they had the means to vacate, they were lots of choices that they could have made. Things would have been alot different if those same people were dragged out of that same complex by Israelis soldiers and force to watch as they beat the brains out of the children with rocks. Yes the result is the same they are dead, but the intention or malice is not. one is a form of war the other terrorism. My Response: It is a cheap parlour trick to hide behind modern technology as a justification for careless and wonton brutality and vengefulness. As far as those people having the means to vacate the area, the facts contradict you. If the UN and red cross found it difficult to get into those areas, how easy must it have been to get out on a few hours notice. Consider also that it's probably not the case that the civilians killed in those areas were probably not the areas top 10% income earners. People without the economic means often have very few choices in situations such as these. Anyway, I appreciate many of your comments and don't think that I have answered all of your challenges so I'll try to follow up later.

Actually, Until last spring I was a flat-deck tow-truck operator. Before that I was forklift operator, and before that an outboard mechanic in the Northern Queen Charlotte islands. So spare me the 'second-class-citizen' line. It doesn't fly. The fact that you don't feel you get the social respect you deserve is no excuse for a lousy attitude (cynicism). I sympathize with you insofar as you might dislike your job. I don't like mine, but that's not the issue here. If you want to discuss modernity, the contemporary division of labour, and the manifold ways that they demoralize and dehumanize people we could take that up elsewhere. In any case I didn't say that you are a cynical person, just that your comment seems to exhibit a degree of cynicism regarding Canada's ability to have an important role in affecting international politics. As far as apathy is concened, again this applies more to your comment than to you. The issue is not whether or not you vote, post on forums, or follow politics. The issue is that your comment suggests that Canada should not develop and put forward policy initiatives of its own because the UNSC is busy doing that for us. You seem to be arguing that since the UNSC is 'probably' going to develop policy that 'might' translate into action on international affairs, as it has in the case of the middle east (after one of its outposts was destroyed in that conflict and the media was awash with photo's and video of the carnage and destruction coming out of the area), Canada shouldn't bother. This strategy, you'll recall, worked wonders in Rwanda. While canada missed the boat on that one, it didn't have to. Likewise, the UNSC looked set to do nothing in the Middle east until its key members came under intense international and domestic pressure to find a solution. There is no reason Canada should not have sought to take a leading role on the issue... either in the UN assembly, as a country with unique lobbying opportunities in the united states, or in a more direct way with those states embroiled in the middle east conflict. Insofar as you think otherwise, you would seem to be suggesting that Canada adopt a disposition toward international politics that is essentially characterized by its apathy. As far as Made in Canada policies are concerned, they are not always the best. However, canada has a history of being a leader within the UN (Canada played an integral role in developing UN papers on torture), and without (the obvious example being the Pearson government's work in the Suez crisis). Many Canadians, myself included, would like to see canada continue to take that kind of a role on the international stage. Hence the concern over whether Harper is, or is not ruining Canada's ability to act as an honest broker.

Actually, have another look at the portion of my post that you cited. My conclusion drew no inferences regarding what "thou shalt do." Likewise there were no inferences drawn in regard to how to make the world a better place. I simply made an argument, with reference to an oft cited piece of scripture - indeed cited earlier in this thread, that established a valid reason for ignoring that particular piece of scripture with reference to the discussion under way here. Please don't attribute things to me that I didn't say. If you believe that my comments lead, logically (either deductively or inductively) to the conclusions you attribute to me I would be happy to hear them. Likewise, if you have a counter-argument against mine for why the ten commandments of the old testament should be brought to bear on this discussion then, again, I'd like to hear it. Beyond that try not to express your self so much like the -hysterically religious cos you done blasphemed son- people.

No... we are standing before the world as a sovereign state (or at least that is the official story) that has recognized that the UN, and more to the point the UNSC, stands as an imperfect (a gross understating of the matter) model for global democratic governance. We don't tell anyone to "do it our way" since canada is hardly in a position to tell anyone anything. However, we do, on occasion, develop our own policies on certain matters and then proceed to suggest those policies as alternative strategies that might be adopted by those Nations serving on the UNSC or who are embroiled in disputes. This is sometimes futile (or sometimes canadian policy just turns out to be plain stupid), but the point is that Canada need not wait for the UNSC to dictate to it what it's official policy ought to be... that was the manner and fashion in which the soviet system operated. A central command develops and decides on policy for a given area and then everyone is 'encouraged' to adopt that policy. You wanna buy into that system... be my guest. However, I will continue to support those governments that seek to develop 'made in Canada' policy initiatives regardless of their effectiveness or the fact that I am currently left with little or no choice in terms of what governments I ought to support. You should read your response. It looks like mine only edited for political correctness. Actually my response looks a little like yours only devoid of cynicism and apathy... while contemporarily common qualities, they are particularly vulgar political traits.... Actually, in all seriousness I think your post misses the point that the UNSC doesn't always act as an honest broker and as such, there needs to be input and agitation from outside of that organization from time to time. Your post seems to suggest that the UNSC will always develop the best policy solutions to world security issues and that the rest of the world should be happy with that, sit back and enjoy the ride... is that what you're saying??? Care to elaborate??

Sorry I'm obviously a bit of a techno-idiot evidenced by my low success rate in getting the quote function to work... Anyway, ARMY GUY you said: "Actually there is clear difinitions that clearly define the Hezbullah as a terrorist group. which one would you like. beside the ones below there is also the canadian, us ,and uk verisions all available on goggle." Then, ARMY GUY you said: "I just curious as to how you could compare the above slaughter, which was done with only one brutal aim, to terrorize the family, to inflict as much pain and suffering as they could...To send a clear message of terrorism to the State of Israel and all her people...To a bombing which was done in retalliation to rocket attacks on a military target.. They did not just kill them , the butchered them, like a red neck would do to a bag of unwanted kittens. Next are you going to equally compare the D-Day landings , to the acts that were carried out in Nazi death camps. As for waiting for an explaination, are you serious what could they possiable tell us that would not make this an act other than terrorism. The people of Lebanbon have made thier chioce very clear to the world, they will stand behind the Hezbullah and thier actions...they've done so with thier votes and they've done so with thier actions or lack off." MY RESPONSE: Well, the Wikipedia entry was interesting (something of an etymological approach to the definition of the term 'terrorism'.), though somewhat unhelpful concerning this discussion. You will undoubtedly have noticed in your reading of the Wikipedia entry that there are a number of definitions of the term, some of which conflict with one another. I didn't say that I don't undertsand the term 'terrorism.' What I was asking for was some commitment on the part of those who seem to simply bandy the term about as a catch all for everything they deem to be evil in the world. What is wanted is a commitment to define and outline the premises by which one makes use of the term terrosrism. You ask me which definition I would like? My answer is: None... I am not calling anyone a terrorist; thus, I have no responsisbilities for defining that concept (however, if you want my help in developing a working and satisfactory definition that straddles political boundaries I would be willing to participate in such an undertaking under a new discussion thread). Additionally, I was looking for some attempt at definition that was not tautologous and, as such, devoid of meaning. For instance telling me that the definition of terrorism you are working with defines terrorist groups as those who commit or are involved with terrorist acts tells me nothing. You must then go on to define what constitutes the difference between a terrorist and a non-terrorist act. Of course a person's resistance to offering these kinds of definitions derives, in part, from the fact that once one does so, as often as not, his/her own definition can be turned against them or those whose policies they are attempting to support through their use of the term. A good example of this arises in Hannah Arendt's reporting on the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann. There she points out that the grounds on which Eichmann was being tried would operate as equally applicable indictments against those americans involved in the Atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (heheh... fooled ya... no attempt to equate the d-day landings with the Nazi death camps). However, the psychological explanation for one's resistance to stable conceptual definition does not release one from the obligation to put forward such a definition insofar as one insists upon usage of the concept. Thus, the question remains: Which definition are 'you' using when you charge a certain group with terrorism? Feel free to elaborate the key points of your definition, I encourage it. As for the often referenced Samir Kuntar raid, I have already indicated my disgust regarding this particular event. However, when I ask for context I am suggesting that there is more to this tragedy than a disgusting murder on a beach. You, yourself admit as much when you call this an act of terrorism against Israel and her people. In doing so you admit at least that this event has a broader context (Israel and Hezbollah) than the event itself. The problem with the way that this story is told... and retold, and retold, and retold... is that it refuses to admit a broader context into the telling of the story, thereby manipulating the emotional response of the reader and leaving one without the information necessary to consider this event and it's relationship to the Hezbollah/Israel conflict in an informed way. You are being unfair and not just a little dishonest when you tell this story, completely devoid of context, and then proceed to refer to the massacre of dozens of Lebanese civilians (women and children) as "a bombing which was done in retalliation to rocket attacks on a military target." Consider, for a moment the manner in which this event might be retold had there been any survivors to tell it. An eye-witness might tell you how a relentless Israeli air strike had pounded out the roads leading from town and to safe ground, leaving those still remaining with little choice but to take cover in what looked like a sturdy building (one of the only ones left standing in any case). Our hypothetical eye-witness would then explain how those people had been hiding there for days with no food or water and no place to go to the bathroom. He might tell you how after the first three days, the stench from human waste was almost unbearable, and still the Israeli bombardment was so fierce and frightening that no one dared go outside. He might say that after a few days of hard prayer the Israeli bombardment seemed to have let up. Then he might tell you how during a discussion of the possibility of going outside to try and find food, and maybe even a different shelter (one not filled with excrement), there was a flash in the far corner of the building and in the next moment there were screams and howls of pain from the injured and dying... some of them missing body parts, one child on fire and burning to death, and some people just dead. He might then tell you that before there was time to even consider getting the injured out of the building the roof began to collapse and when the dust settle he could see that though he had a way out evryone else had been buried... some were still alive and in horrible pain, evidenced by their shrieks and cries for help.... etc, etc, etc. This may be a little over the top.? in any case, I find it exceedingly difficult to imagine a scenario in which an eye-witness to the Israeli bombing of a building filled with women and children would describe his/her experience of such an event as "a bombing which was done in retalliation to rocket attacks on a military target." (your words) The point here is the manner in which the story is told. On the one hand the israeli bombardment of that building saved countless Israeli lives from a grizzly death by rocket shrapnel. On the other hand The Israeli attack is a savage and cavalier murder carried out by some kid with his finger on a button hundreds of feet above. Likewise, the attacks against Israeli civilians in 1979 resulted in some of the most grusome crimes on record in the region. On the other hand... well we don't know because those of you who have made that story a stock part of any discussion regarding conflict in the middle east seem unwilling or unable to represent that event in its broader context. That said, the question of context remains... what was the Israeli role in Lebanon at the time? What was happening between Israel and Hezbollah at the time? etc, etc... I won't belabour the point any longer.

No... we are standing before the world as a sovereign state (or at least that is the official story) that has recognized that the UN, and more to the point the UNSC, stands as an imperfect (a gross understating of the matter) model for global democratic governance. We don't tell anyone to "do it our way" since canada is hardly in a position to tell anyone anything. However, we do, on occasion, develop our own policies on certain matters and then proceed to suggest those policies as alternative strategies that might be adopted by those Nations serving on the UNSC or who are embroiled in disputes. This is sometimes futile (or sometimes canadian policy just turns out to be plain stupid), but the point is that Canada need not wait for the UNSC to dictate to it what it's official policy ought to be... that was the manner and fashion in which the soviet system operated. A central command develops and decides on policy for a given area and then everyone is 'encouraged' to adopt that policy. You wanna buy into that system... be my guest. However, I will continue to support those governments that seek to develop 'made in Canada' policy initiatives regardless of their effectiveness or the fact that I am currently left with little or no choice in terms of what governments I ought to support.

Isn't 'what?' what the UN is for??? To be an honest broker? Why must we act independently of the UNSC when that's what they are for in the first place? Don't we pay member dues for just such an occasion? we must sometimes act independantly of the UNSC because the UNSC is not always an honest broker (niether are we but the idea is that we are supposed to make the effort)... It is run by the most powerful states in the world... incidentally, the fact that they are the most powerful, in many cases, translates to an inability to broker deals that are just for the parties in question because said power ensures that UNSC members often have a vested interest in certain outcomes, not necessarily the best outcomes. We pay membership dues because while the UN is imperfect it is the only organization of its kind and withdrawing one's membership is thought to be detrimental to a state's legitimacy in international affairs. Incidentally, I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case but it, or something like it, seems to be the logic that motivates us to continue paying dues.

Actually... this pisses me off because your sentence structure and spelling are poor and your little rant bears the tone of a street corner, soap box communist.

In point of fact these pills are hormonal treatments that bear a strong chemical similarity to many average birth control pills (the dosages are different). There is very little chance that this treatment will cause any adverse side effect that is not already a danger associated with standard BC pills. Thus, in a sense, many people already are using this treatment on a regular basis (at reduced dosages in the form of birth control pills).

Thou Shalt not Kill...?? Wrong, the ten commandments of the old testament were explicitly given to moses as the governing law for the hebrews in the promised hebrew state. Those laws were never meant to be adopted by humanity at large. God did not tell Moses to use those laws to govern the Canaanites or anyone else. At such time as the hebrew god saw fit to dissolve the hebrew state (the first time around) because of the corrupt behaviour of its people and clergy, that state's constitutional laws ceased to have any worldly application. Thus, the ten commandments are null and void and not applicable in this matter. Thus it is of no consequence whether abortion counts as killing or not since there is no legitimate and overarching ban (metaphysical or human in origin) on killing. Liberals, any thinking liberal (or conservative for that matter) that is, do not seek to protect life as a hard and fast rule. They tackle political issues on a case by case basis recognizing that questions concerning the judicial, penal and correctional system bear very little in common with the concerns surrounding the individual right to choose one's physical fate or the fate of one's potential child (especially for a group that has traditionally been marginalized in that regard in our society). Thus asking questions like 'why do Liberals (or anyone else for that matter) accept abortion while refusing capital punishment' displays a remarkable lack of depth in understanding the differences between the two instances. In both cases a life (or potential life) is terminated. However, the question is not why do liberals accept the termination of life and deny the termination of life. Abortion and capital punishment are simply not logically identical, thus in order to treat those issues with the degree of sensitivity they deserve one must understand their diffrences and then proceed to identify the appopriate (and in all likelihood diffrent) approach for each case. Thus the Liberals in question have considered the facts concerning capital punishment and have chosen to do away with that ridiculous policy on a number of grounds, many of which have been outlined by the writers who have posted here. In a separate consideration, Liberals have reasoned that they wish to uphold the rights of the woman to choose the manner and fashion in which she will dispose of her body; while they do concede that the fetus has some rights, the rights of the woman are taken to have precedence over and above the rights of the fetus. This simply amounts to a matter of making a choice. So this, or something like this, as near as I can tell is how liberals arrive at their position, the position in which they find themselves supporting womens' right to choose and denying the utility or defensibility of a society's use of the death penalty. I can only imagine that this, or something like it is what goes on in the mind of the thinking conservative who arrives at the opposite conclusion. Have I answered the question for which this thread was started?

Isn't 'what?' what the UN is for???

oops, my mistake... I misunderstood the link and read it as a collection of Spinoza paraphrasings (unfamiliar as I am with Einstein's writings). Apologies and thx for the clarafication. Please excuse and disreagard the comments on Spinoza. cheers heheh... I just re-read my post and the final bit of 'advice' I offered... apparently I would do well to practice my own 'preachings,' as it were, a little more often... again... apologies.