Morgan

1. differences between reliability/credibility of info. from General Abizaid who's in charge of 35,000 GI's fighting in Iraq, who visits Iraq in person, who speaks Arabic because he is an Arab-American himself...versus a Philadelphia based journalist's version of a leaked secret CIA report, confirmed by unnamed US officials...ummm, where do I begin? General Abizaid is going on record with his comments about the approximate numbers and identity of the "insurgents" in Iraq. General Abazaid has a reputation to worry about...he's accountable to Congress and he has much more to lose for making misleading/untruthful press announcements. However, unnamed US officials cannot be held accountable, and the Philadelphia Inquirer reporter's position is, in fact, enhanced with his boss if he presents a controversial theory that sells more newspapers. Ditto for the Guardian, which like the BBC, has been notoriously anti-American. The "talking heads" at the Guardian and the BBC were the same guys who forecast 100,000 or more Iraqi deaths if the coalition troops invaded, blah, blah... I believe various sources have been quoted in the past ranging from military sources to Iraqis living in the middle of conflict about the Baathists, Al Feyadeen, and foreign fighters being the "insurgents", but you refuse to believe what's said. Based on the content of our previous posts, I have the distinct impression that your mind was made up from the get-go and you hope for US "occupation" failure in Iraq. I have no desire to waste my time doing any more research for a negative mindset. 3. Your comments make no sense to me. If there were no so-called "illegal invasion" by the coalition military force, Saddam would still be in power. That amounts to tacit support of the previous regime.

Black Dog, 1. All 3 of your links relate to a "secret" CIA report that was "leaked" to the Philadelphia Inquirer and whose contents were summarized by a journalist on staff at the newspaper on Nov.12. The article quotes "unnamed administration officials" as sources for confirming that the "classified " document's bleak view of the situation in Iraq has been "privately" endorsed by Iraq's U.S. governor, Paul Bremer. No offense, but words like secret, leaked, unnamed sources, classified, privately ...make it hard to evaluate the credibility of the article because one cannot compare how much is true, how much is spin, how much information has been omitted/taken out of context. Furthermore, the leaker of classified information purportedly supporting a negative image of the situation in Iraq might be a biased source of information, perhaps even a Bush hater in the CIA or military ranks. 2. As for the Iraqi teens celebrating the GI deaths in the helicopter crash, I recall an Iraqi blogger actually living in Baghdad[Healing Iraq] addressing that incident saying that this small group of teens did not represent the majority and that with Baathists and Al Feyadeen still hiding within local neighborhoods, it was dangerous for the average Iraqi to go public with a counter demonstration to challenge the one staged by the Iraqi teens at the crash site. 3. With regards to GI's putting tape on a suspect's mouth who made anti-coalition statements and Reuters reporters being miffed at the US commander for only giving them a brief statement...what does that prove? Perhaps the man was shouting inflammatory hate speech against coalition troops? In that case, I for one don't believe he should be allowed "free speech," and that tape over his mouth was a non-physical method to contain the continued outpouring of vile words. That Reuters was not embraced and treated as an "equal" in a free and open information exchange with the US commander is laughable in itself. Reuters should get a clue and adopt a less self-important vision of its place in Iraq. 4. Here's what the head honcho in the military, General Abizaid just announced an hour ago. From his perspective, it's the same, same old usual suspects and not ordinary Iraqi citizen throwing their hats in with the insurgents. He feels that these are just more Saddam supporters who are coming out of the woodwork anong with help from foreign Al Queda fighters coming into Iraq. US General says only 5000 insurgents in Iraq, AP News, Nov.13 The forces opposing the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq total no more than 5,000 insurgent fighters, the top American general in the region said Thursday. Abizaid said the largest and most dangerous portion of the opposition forces consists of loyalists of ousted president Saddam Hussein. Foreign fighters also pose a threat and are entering Iraq through porous borders, Abizaid said. 5. For the life of me I can't figure out why the Left takes such obvious glee in any story or rumour, no matter whether it is false or true, that coalition troops might be overwhelmed by Sadam supporters and Al Queda fighters. And what does the Left think will happen to ordinary Iraqis if the coalition troops fail? Happy days again like before when Uncle Saddam was in charge ...did all the trains run on time then? What about the rape rooms, mass graves, children's prisons, Saddam's humongous personal bank accounts abroad while his own people lived terror-ridden humble life styles? I think the Left needs to look more closely at the "side" they cheer for as well as who stands to lose the most if the Left's dreams come true and coalition troops withdraw.

Though I feel that abortion is a necessary social evil in modern society, I still shake my head in dismay when I read that some women have been indoctrinated into believing that pro-abortion lobby groups are on their side with motives as pure as driven snow, as opposed to anti-abortion groups who are evil, who want to hold women back. Unfortunately, the pro-abortion lobby, while supposedly partnering themselves with women on the high minded road to empowering women so that informed decisions/choices can be made, in fact may have been following a different "agenda" path. For instance when a significant abortion health risk is not disclosed to women, I'd suggest that action subverts the empowerment/informed decision process and impunes the motives of those who are responsible. Consider the fact that the link between increased risk of breast cancer to abortion has been kept under raps by pro-abortion lobbying groups. IMHO, women should be more discerning, more dispassionate about the motives/agenda of those they view as staunch allies in the fight to "liberate" women. Medical group: Tell women about abortion-cancer risk Nov.12, 2003 "...The Catholic Medical Association has added its voice to growing support for legislation requiring abortion doctors to inform prospective patients about the increased risk of breast cancer associated with having an abortion. The resolution cites evidence supporting an abortion-breast cancer link, commonly known as the ABC link. Twenty-nine of 38 published studies conducted worldwide since 1957 show a positive association between the two. Seventeen of the 29 are statistically significant, which means there's a 95 percent certainty that the association is not by chance. The CMA's endorsement follows a similar announcement by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, or AAPS, favoring disclosure to patients of the "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer. Groups such as Planned Parenthood attack the validity of the research and refuse to inform prospective abortion recipients of the existence, dismissing even the statistically significant findings as "misinformation" being used "as a weapon in the campaign against safe, legal abortion." ...

I think this is yet another way to to add taxes without government cutting expenditures.The government has been living handsomely off the new found taxes of their booming Internet pharamacies and now the US FDA will be cutting that Manitoba "industry" at the news. Bye, bye, a big chunk of provincial business taxes. Manitoba's NDP socialist philosophy is now catching up with them and they want to shift the responsibilities for their inability to make tough decisions to J.Q. Taxpayer. Even using the phrase "New Deal" kind of gives me the creeps. Also, this idea of spinning the New Deal as something "noble" that will prevent Manitoba from groveling to the Feds...what a bunch of B.S. Groveling wouldn't work anyways because according Manley's budget update, the Feds have no $. The surplus is gone and Alberta and Ontario can't be forced to pony up more money for transfer payments. Furthermore, if you compare the wording of the first column to the second column[in the linked article],there are many "would's" in the doom and gloom column of worst case scenarios yet only "could's" and "might's" in the column of optimistic new scenarios with the New Deal in place. In other words, there's no certainty that property taxes will go down, with the "New Deal" in place. And consumers are already paying for purchases through the GST and provincial tax. As to spinning The New Deal the environmental way...honestly, do you really think that this is going to prevent people from buying new rubber tires for their car? Do you think consumers may look for environmentally friendly wings instead? Doer's supporters are from the unions. He rose from the ranks of being CUPE's head honcho. Both provincial and municipal civil servants make handsome salaries in Manitoba and there are too many of them. That's where Doer should look for $ - give the unions 2 choices: either major cuts in staffing levels or negotiated salary roll backs in the new contracts. But of course, Doer would prefer to spread the pain around to everyone not just his supporters. Fyi, rent controls have made for a lot of tacky run down housing in the North End and inner city. Sounds good in theory. The New Deal is nanny state taxation mindset on steroids.

Sir Riff. I got the point. It's just that I'm looking at facts that you are choosing to ignore. You claim that the US purposely sent a Canadian citizen to Syria to be tortured, instead of deporting him to Canada. Arar is a dual citizen - Arar did not renounce his Syrian citizenship after he became a natuaralized Canadian citizen- so he's still considered a Syrian national. -the USA tried to first deport him to Canada, but Canadian officials said "NO." - Canadian officials had developed a dossier on Arar and they did not want a person whom they suspected of having Al Qeda links sent back to Canada. -the USA then deported him to Syria, because Arar was Syrian. Why should the USA get stuck with Arar? The USA had no obligation to keep a suspected terrorist in their country. -even after Arar was deported to Syria, the RCMP and CSIS blocked lobbying by the Foreign Affairs Department to have Chretien intervene on Arar's behalf -fyi, I read elsewhere that though Arar claims he was tortured, the Canadian Foreign Office officials who visited him in Syria saw no evidence to support Arar's claim. Go figure. -the RCMP and CSIS have not charged him with anything because they were developing a case on him and others in the "cell" but then Arar suddenly disappeared for almost a year. The next time Arar re-surfaced was when his name was flagged to the USA as he stopped over in New York on his way to Canada fromTunisia. Important points from the Ottawa Citizen article by Juliet O'Neill: -The RCMP had caught Mr. Arar in their sights while investigating the activities of members of an alleged al-Qaeda logistical support group in Ottawa. -And it was in defence of their investigative work -- against suggestions that the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, had either bungled Mr. Arar's case or, worse, purposefully sent an innocent man to be tortured in Syria --that security officials leaked allegations against him in the weeks leading to his return to Canada -The document also tells of a purported trip by Mr. Arar to neighbouring Pakistan while en route to the Mujahadeen camp. It says he went at the behest of Montreal members of a group named the Pakistani Jamaat Tabligh, described as an Islamic missionary organization not know to be involved in acts of violence or terrorism. It said he had been assigned in the early 1990s, while studying at McGill University, to recruit followers for the Jihad -When the RCMP called on Mr. Arar in January, 2002 -- the same month that RCMP executed a search warrant against Mr. Almalki, seizing computers and files and interrogating two of his brothers -- Mr. Arar was out of the country. - He telephoned the RCMP from Tunisia and later agreed to meet them, accompanied by his lawyer. The RCMP never followed up, Mr. Arar says. Mr. Arar had disappeared, says a security source. - It is the existence of a suspected Ottawa-based al-Qaeda "cell" and what its members were believed to be up to, that a security source cites as the root of why the Canadian government is so fiercely opposed to a public inquiry into the case of Mr. Arar. -An inquiry might also put the spotlight on allegations of a plot to bomb the U.S. Embassy and on allegations that the plot had been abandoned in favour of apparently easier targets -- on Parliament Hill and elsewhere in the nation's capital. -And most, if not all the targets of the RCMP investigation into the alleged cell are said to be in prison abroad. Only Ahmed Said Khadr, an Egyptian-Canadian, is said to be at large, possibly in Afghanistan. -The Foreign Affairs Department has for months had a list of seven Canadian men with alleged links to terrorism in prison abroad. Until a few weeks ago, that list included Mr. Arar. -after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City, the Syrians had emerged as one of the Central Intelligence Agency's most effective intelligence allies in the fight against al-Qaeda, sharing hundreds of dossiers on al-Qaeda cells throughout the Middle East and in Arab exile communities in Europe. Syria had accumulated much of its information, Mr. Hersh wrote, because of al- Qaeda's ties to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic terrorists who have been at war with the secular Syrian government for more than two decades -Gar Pardy, the recently retired consular affairs chief from Foreign Affairs, says the RCMP and CSIS persistently opposed Foreign Affairs' efforts to bring Mr. Arar's case to the prime minister for intervention

Righturnonred, I agree with what you said: City Journal often has top calibre writing, and the following piece I'm about to quote from is no exception. As well, it's a propos to the discussion, providing statistics I was not aware of before reading it here. They confirmed the description of abortion which a few of us expressed: that abortion is, regretably, a necessary evil of modern society as things stand today. Why we don't marry by J.Q.Wilson, NY City Journal, Winter 2002 -Everyone knows that the rising proportion of women who bear and raise children out of wedlock has greatly weakened the American family system. This phenomenon, once thought limited to African Americans, now affects whites as well. For whites the rate is one-fifth; for blacks it is over one-half. -Now that our social security and pension systems have dramatically reduced poverty among the elderly, growing up with only one parent has dramatically increased poverty among children. In this country we have managed to shift poverty from old folks to young folks. The illegitimacy ratio in the late 1990s was 33 percent for the United States, 31 percent for Canada, and 38 percent for the United Kingdom. -Former Clinton advisor William Galston sums up the matter this way: you need only do three things in this country to avoid poverty—finish high school, marry before having a child, and marry after the age of 20. -There has been a sharp increase in children who are not only born out of wedlock but are raised without a father. In the United States, the percentage of children living with an unmarried mother has tripled since 1960 and more than doubled since 1970. In England, 22 percent of all children under the age of 16 are living with only one parent, a rate three times higher than in 1971. -Why has this happened? There are two possible explanations to consider: money and culture... I recommend reading the full text of this article. Wilson makes interesting observations on how the Enlightenment, as exciting and progressive as it was for the West, exacted a huge cost. Perhaps that's why Islamic fundamentalists like OBL are obsessed with destroying the West - it's the only way for them to stop the advance of Enlightenment on their culture.

I think this case is a perfect example of the power of media to control our views on particular issues by the way they spin the news. Ironically enough, on Saturday I found an article about Arar written by Juliet O'Neill in the Ottawa Citizen. It presents a VERY DIFFERENT view of the Arar case and picks up on details that the Toronto Star does not. It's almost like you're reading about 2 different cases. The article is long but very thorough in the coverage of all the aspects. Canada's dossier on Maher Arar To me it's obvious that the Toronto Star is promoting an agenda...that the USA purposely abused a Canadian citizen by forcing him to be sent to Syria,where he'd be tortured, instead of returning him to Canada. It has a strong anti-American bias.Talk about someone implying guilt before there's a formal investigation...McQuaig is over the top homonal with her emotionally charged writing style. However, the Ottawa Citizen demonstrates in a more methodical style of writing that the USA had no choice but to deport Arar to Syria, because when they first tried to return Arar to Canada, Canadian authorities said "no." So the only choice available to the USA was to send Arar to Syria. Arar was a dual citizen. The Ottawa Citizen almost gives the Americans bit parts, while it focuses on the machinations within the Canadian levels of government. Arar had never renounced his Syrian citizenship, and evidently, when a person has dual citizenship, he will be deported to which ever country will take him. The USA tried Canada first, and then they went down the list...Syria was next. I don't think the USA was under any obligation to let Arar stay in their country. What for? It's their perogative to let visitors in or not. This guy had questionable links with shady characters, so they said thanks but no thanks, just keep moving along. Ms. O'Neill implies that it was the Canadian government that was acting like doofuses, with the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing. Due to pressure from Muslim organizations, Chretien jumped in with both feet into a situation that was complicated by the fact that Cdn. intelligence had a dossier on Arar and didn't want Arar back, but Chretien went above their heads. Now Chretien is trying to blame the USA, so he can avoid an internal investigation which would show how impulsive and arrogant he was. Even Paul Martin is calling for an internal investigation to be done before anyone starts pointing fingers and trying to put blame on the USA for no reason. Obviously, Paul Martin doesn't want to inherit the mess that Chretien has created. Based on the facts I read in the Ottawa Citizen, the USA acted properly. I think the problem in this case was that the Canadian political level was working at cross-purposes with the Canadian intelligence agencies. With regards to Arar's questionable terrorist links, I think the Canadian intelligence agencies did the proper thing by passing along the information they had accumulated to the USA, so the Americans could choose whether they wanted Arar cruising around their country. What's the point of accumulating intelligence information without sharing it with other allies if all of us are supposed to be partners in this war on terrorism? Just 2 years ago, 3000 people were murdered due to the USA "trusting" nationals from other countries. They're not going to get duped again. Not to mention that Canada has received alot of bad press about being a haven for "bad guys," and letting ever Tom Dick and Harry into the country. That Syria would drag their feet on responding to Canada's request is no surprise...Canada's a paper tiger. Syria could care less about Canada's posturing. The poor Iranian dual citizen journalist was innocent, but she didn't make it out alive, so I don't think one can assume that Arar is innocent just because he was eventually released. Maybe Syria got the information it wanted? We'll never know. I don't think Syria is an intelligence sharing type, do you? Morale of the story is that Canadians should not travel to Third World countries with any illusions that Canda could help them if they were apprehended.

Krusty Kidd, Israel likes Arafat to be leader of the Palestinians? I'm sorry but that's sheer lunacy. If you read that in some book, then the author is a nutbar, IMHO. Israel has been chomping at the bit to send Arafat to Allah and the 27 virgins as of yesterday. But Sharon has given Bush his word that Arafat will not meet with a sudden unavoidable "eventuality" which the Americans fear would cause a conflagration in the ME and turn that corrupt, terrorist enabling slimeball into a "martyr." Arafat is not flamboyant? Now that's an understatement. It might help his image if he took a bath and changed his military garb and head sheet once in a while. As for sleeping with his troops? oh, right, after getting tired out from distributing bomb loaded vests to Palestinian teenagers... Arafat is not the root cause of violence in the ME, I'd agree, but he sure enables it by keeping Palestinians poor and angry, by keeping terrorist groups on retainers, all the while accumulating a personal fortune for himself. As I've said before, Palestinians are going NOWHERE by listening to their Arab brothers and hating Israel. They are pawns and pawns they will remain unless they get a clue to dump the creeps that manipulate them, swallow their bile for Israel, and co-operate with Israel. Israel has turned a barren bunch of sand into a thriving metropolis. If the Israelis used their ingenuity and drive to do that for themselves, they could help the Palestinians do the same for themselves. It's a win, win. On the otherhand, the Arab brethern have done zilch for the Palestinians, because most haven't done that much for their own countries quite frankly and because it's not in their best interests that Palestinians be anything but destitute. A failed Palestinian state serves as a rallying point for all Muslims to continue their dreams of destroying Israel.

Mr. Farrius, Your comments sound alot like sour grapes to me. No offence, but neither you nor other Bush haters who contributed to this thread have been able to mount a credible argument to: 1. prove that any of the Democrat Party Presidential candidates are anything but pale shadows of the incumbent President. 2. that Bush is stupid, corrupt, or ineffective in the way he has dispatched his Presidential duties and responsibilities. a. re: stupidity I would agree that Bush has not always been comfortable before a microphone but he's no different than some other heads of state. Chretien is an prime example of someone who can't make himself understood in either French nor English. But I'm sure you'd never suggest that Chretien's fumbling with words shows that he's stupid. Nor does this same flaw indicate that Bush is stupid. Bush has a bachelor's degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard - stupid people, even if they are rich, can't buy degrees from those elite colleges. Otherwise rich people like Al Gore, the Democrat who faced off against Bush in 2000, could have done the same thing instead of barely graduating from journalism school. Everyone thought, including you I'll wager, that Bush was stupid while Gore was a genius. Appearances can be deceiving. Al Gore's dubious academic record. In terms of raw genius, I've heard it said that Jimmy Carter wins the title. But how did raw intelligence help Carter in the Oval Office? Carter's Presidency goes down in history as one of the most reviled for blunders, incompetence, bringing America to her knees diplomatically as well as economically. b. re: corruption And how is Bush corrupt? Did he steal money? How could he profit from being President when he was already a self-made millionaire many times over and that's not counting what he stands to inherit from his father and mother. If anything Bush takes a major income cut by being President. c. re: ineffective Ineffective is another emotionally based criticism with no proof. Since 9/11 and the subsequent meltdown of the stock market and the economy, he's stayed the course and has slowly but surely turned the economy around. New jobs and other good economic indicators, NYT, Nov.8/03 There have been no other terrorist attacks on American soil, just threats with no fruition. Bush has taken the battle on terrorism to the terrorists' backyards, something that others have demonized him for but look what he has accomplished...he's headed a coalition of nations to drive out the Taliban and help bring Afghanistan to the 21st century. He's driven a ruthless dictator - btw, more graves of dead Iraqis have been found this week - the body count from Saddam's terror is up to 300,000 and still counting. More graves are found in Iraq - now totalling 300,000 persons butchered by Saddam He's given 20 Million Iraqis hope for a future.The Shiite Mullahs before tacitly and openly are referring to American GI's as "friends". The Kurds are as happy as can be. They're volunteering to help the GI's drive the Baathists and remnents of the Republican Guard away from Tikrit. Iraqis in Baghdad are stealthily setting up blogs to communicate with the outside world about how happy they are with "El George Bush" rescuing their nation from Saddam. These Iraqis say they fear that the traditional media are conveying distortions of what's happening in Iraq these days and these stories will cause the American public to pressure Bush to leave Iraq before all the work is done. http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/ http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/ http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ In the largest ME English language daily newspaper, Arab News, just a few days ago a journalist published a pro-USA invasion of article, admitting he changed his initial antagonistic position because he sees the positive changes for Iraqis that the Americans are causing. Arab News, Nov.06/03 : changed to pro-US invasion of Iraq in retrospect Formerly sullen and unco-operative Iran is being very accomodating with plans for inspections now that they've got American and UK soldiers as "neighbours." The aytollah's grandson is calling for Bush to invade Iran and bring democracy there, too. How about that? Conversations with Khomeini, Christopher Hitchens, Oct.06/03 Talks are continuing with formerly pugnacious N. Korea, who is no longer uttering war cries, in the aftermath of the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Though the US military has been called upon to do heroic undertakings in the fight against terrorism and suffered some loss of lives, morale is up under Bush's leadership and re-enlistment is at 106%. Army exceeds retention goals, Stars and Stripes, Nov.5/03 I think Bush inherited/was presented with crises that only a handful of Presidents have experienced over the years. I think he is leading his nation remarkably well and he's providing leadership to other nations as well at this time of political/economic uncertainty throughout the world. Saudi Arabia has just been struck by terrorism and is calling on world leaders to help them fight terrorism. The Saudis are a perfect example of a nation who thought they could save themselves by befriending and feeding the crocodile...maybe other nations will learn from the Saudi's experience [cough... France and Germany] Al Qaeda attacks Saudi Arabia, The Saudis now call on int'l leaders to help them fight terrorism 3. weaknesses I see in Bush I don't think Bush is perfect by any means. He's way, way too liberal, in fact too much like a Democrat, in his domestic spending. Bush's support of entitlements makes Roosevelt look like Scrooge. Bush is also too liberal, soft, on illegal immigration from Mexico. He prides himself on being a "compassionate" conservative and I think this business of not getting tough with illegal Hispanics plays to that part of his self-image. However, it would be disasterous if Al Qeada ever decided to use the soft border with Mexico to their advantage. But these "weakness" I've just mentioned are not things that show Bush is stupid, corrupt, or ineffective. Furthermore, all the Democrat candidates would be as bad or worse re: domestic spending and illegal Hispanic immigration, and from what I see in the 9 dwarfs, they would all fail in leadership qualities that Bush excels in, and which are desperately needed in these perilous times.

Ckny, What you've just posted is an example of what holds the Palestinians trapped in a life with no future - it's called "visceral hatred for Israel", not seeing Israel as a partner but rather as an enemy to be destroyed. It's this irrational bottomless hatred for past Zionist inspired injustices, real or imagined, that keeps most Palestinians looking backward, never forward. But hopefully, some of the Palestinians are beginning to see the light, they're starting to recognize, albeit with small baby steps, those who want to drag them down to the abyss[Jew haters]versus those who can assist them to enjoy normal productive lives and raise their families in peace[Jews]. Here's an item which gives me hope that truth and reason will eventually prevail in the minds and hearts of the Palestinian people. This man is questioning the motives, the failed promises of anti-semetic hate mongers. That's a good start: A Letter from a Father of a Suicide Bomber, October 07/03 MEMRI translates an extraordinary, wrenching letter to the editor of the London Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat, from the father of a young Palestinian who carried out a suicide bombing in Israel. "I can find no better words with which to begin my letter than the words of Allah, in his precious book [the Koran]: 'Act for the sake of Allah, and do not throw yourselves to destruction with your own hands.'(2) I write this letter with a languishing heart and with eyes that have not ceased weeping. We must, today more than at any other time, obey this Koranic verse, act for the sake of Allah, and refrain from carrying out acts that will throw us to destruction." "Four months ago, I lost my eldest son when his friends tempted him, praising the path of death. They persuaded him to blow himself up in one of Israel's cities. When the pure body of my son was scattered all over, my last signs of life also dispersed, along with hope and my will to exist. Since that day, I am like [an] apparition walking the earth, not to mention that I, my wife, and my other sons and daughters have become displaced since the razing of the home in which we lived." "But the last straw was when I was informed that the friends of my eldest son the martyr were starting to wrap themselves like snakes around my other son, not yet 17, to direct him to the same path towards which they had guided his brother, so that he would blow himself up too to avenge his brother, claiming 'he had nothing to lose.'" "From the blood of the wounded heart of a father who has lost what is most precious to him in the world, I turn to the leaders of the Palestinian factions, and at their head the leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and their sheikhs, who use religious rulings and statements to urge more and more of the sons of Palestine to their deaths – knowing full well that sending young people to blow themselves up in the heart of Israel deters no enemy and liberates no land. On the contrary, [it] intensifies the aggression, and after every such operation, civilians are killed, homes are razed, and Palestinian cities and villages are reoccupied."

Mr. Farrius, Kindly support your claim that I'm arguing a biased case against the Palestinians without any good knowlege. a)I clearly said that the Palestinians live a destitute life but the potential for a wonderful future is there for them, if they make some smart choices. How is this biased AGAINST the Palestinians? If I'm hoping they will enjoy success in the future, how is that being anti-Palestinian? My position, based on proofs you obviously did not read, is that the Palestinians are allowing themselves to be manipulated by those who make profits at their expense[Arafat et al] or those who wish to see them fail because of hatred for Israel[other Arab nations] or those, who are giving them a false bill of goods in revisionist history, because they're misguided pompous fools, full of their own genius for saving the world[media, academics, do gooders at the UN, to name a few]. I said that the Palestinians have access to information on the Internet to empower themselves with truth, not lies - I was able to do that in a few short hours with the help of Google. Then once they are working from a firm footing in reality, it would be much easier for them to see the way and seize the opportunity offered by Israel to join forces to carve out a productive dual nation state. Ironically enough, it's Israel's presence not Israel's destruction that represents the best hope for the Palestinians, something that the Palestinians need to recognize if they want to better themselves in the future. c) I don't think you need to be or live with the Palestinians to find the truths, discard the illusions, figure out who benefits from your success, who benefits from your failures and then tie your fortunes to the former. d) To say ...oh let's not judge anyone harshly and be insensitive blah, blah ...kumbayah, give peace a chance...everyone shares the blame equally for the bloodshed kumbayah... is what I think is being anti-Palestinian! IMHO, it's pseudo "empathy," hand wringing indulgence in moral relativity which is dooming the Palestinians to a life of self-deception and woe.

Cknykid, Here's the reason why Israel is building a wall to defend itself from terrorism - because the government which the Palestinians support, under the leadership of Arafat, does nothing to stop the terrorism against Israeli civilians, and indeed, is enabling the terrorists. So the "blame", for any hardships that the security wall will cause the Palestinians falls squarely on their own shoulders. They allow a corrupt Egyptian transplant named Arafat to be their "Palestinian" leader knowing full well that he's taking them for a ride - they live in hovels while Arafat's wife and child live in splendour in Paris. Arafat placed No. 6 on a list in Forbes magazine of world leaders in the "kings, queens, and despots" category. Forbes wrote that Arafat has "feasted on all sorts of funds flowing into the PA, including aid money, Israeli tax transfers, and revenue from a casino and Coca-Cola bottler. Much of the money appears to have gone to pay off others" And by looking at their current living conditions, Palestinians should acknowledge the fact that "others" did not mean them. The Internet is a powerful "equalizing" tool for accessing information nowadays whether you live in the West Bank or in Buckington Palace.Palestinians surely have read articles like the following that demonstrate that Arafat has swindled the Palestinians of anywhere from $300 Million to $500 Million to supplement his personal fortune, as well as misdirecting millions given him as aid for Palestinians from other Arabs in the region. Arab nations halt funding after reports Arafat embezzled Aid, World Tribune, July 26/02 Arafat diverted $300M-$500M of public money to Swiss bank accounts, The Telegraph, Nov.9/03 -More than $300 million (£176 million) of Palestinian Authority funds were diverted by Yasser Arafat into a previously undisclosed Swiss bank account and the money can no longer be traced, according to a damning American television report[CBS] to be broadcast today. -The revelation follows the disclosure by the International Monetary Fund in September that Mr Arafat had diverted more than £560 million of Palestinian Authority funds from 1995 to 2000. - The new report coincides with a BBC documentary, also to be screened tonight, which claims the Palestinian Authority is paying members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, an armed militia responsible for carrying out suicide attacks against Israelis, up to $50,000 (£29,000) a month. - The BBC will quote a former Palestinian cabinet minister claiming that the money was intended to wean the gunmen away from suicide bombings. But an al-Aqsa leader interviewed by the BBC said that despite the payments, the group had not declared a formal ceasefire and Mr Arafat had not asked it to stop the suicide bombings. - Of the money sent to accounts controlled by Mr Arafat and Mr Rashid, the IMF said $700 million had been accounted for and was in investments held by the Authority.Officials admitted that there was a gap of at least $200 million. - the Palestinian leader hands out $20 million a month to his security forces in cash - A senior Palestinian official refused to comment on the claims but said: "It is a shame that CBS focused on allegations of corruption rather than Israel's ongoing military occupation of Palestinian lands." ***The last comment is very telling...instead of fixing their self-perpetuated problems[Arafat], they use Israel as their whipping boy. Another thing, Palestinians would be advised to do a Reality Check regarding the history behind the phrase "occupied land." They would be shocked, no doubt, to learn that "occupied lands" are "the fruits of war" that Israel won when it successfully defended itself against an unprovoked attack by a coalition of Arab countries. The Palestinians, unfortunately, put their money on the losing side, so they should put aside their strange notion of being "owed" anything by the victor. Instead the Palestinians should build good will with the victor to earn generosity.The adjectival modifier that feel-good, left wingers in the media, academia, and the UN carelessly omit when they speak of "occupied land" is the word "legitimate." Ergo, the phrase should properly read: "Israel's legitimate occupation of the land where...blah, blah..." Israel, the victor, has been generous enough to make an offer to the Palestinians, on which they have been unwilling/incapable to follow through...give Israel peaceful co-existence, and then Israel would be willing to share some of its "spoils of war." The Palestinians need to "do" not just give false promises or endulge themselves in fantasy entitlements. Until the Palestinians seize their future from the grasp of Arafat and his ilk, they are choosing a bleak present and future. As for the Biblical/historical rights of "Palestinians" to Palestine, I just found the following artcle through a quick google search. It appears that Palestinians's sense of entitlement based on Biblical history as well as modern definitions of nationhood is on shaky ground. What does the Palestinian nation offer the world? Cynthia Ozick, WSJ June 30/03 -When, some years ago, Golda Meir contentiously remarked, "There are no Palestinians," she was historically correct and evolutionally mistaken. She was right because the people who had only recently begun to take on the name "Palestinian" were ethnically and civilizationally Arab, part of what the Arabs themselves were pleased to call, with the poetic resonance of indivisibility, "the Arab Nation." Palestine, moreover, had its origin as a term of malice, the Roman invaders' way of erasing Judea by naming it after the Philistines who warred against the Jews. And like the Palestinians today, who deny the ancient reality of the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount, the emperor Hadrian also had the distinction of reassigning the history of Jerusalem; he dubbed it Aelia Capitolina, in honor of Jupiter. -Yet at the same time Golda Meir was mistaken: She declined to recognize a growing sectarianism rooted not merely in the bitterness of contemporary politics but far more comprehensively in a particularized and developing cultism. Whether the Palestinians nowadays constitute a cult or a sect or a nation within the greater Arab world is scarcely to the point. They have become a nation in their own eyes--and, with the blessings of the road map, internationally as well. -In order to deprive Jews of their patrimony, Palestinians have fabricated a sectarian narrative alien to commonplace knowledge. Although the Arab invasion of Palestine did not occur until the 17th century, Palestinian Arabs are declared to be, according to activist Salah Jabr, "the descendants of civilizations that have lived in this land since the Stone Age." With equal absurdity, other such deniers of Jewish patrimony claim a Canaanite bloodline. By replacing history with fantasy, the Palestinians have invented a society unlike any other, where hatred trumps bread. They have reared children unlike any other children, removed from ordinary norms and behaviors. And they have been assisted in these deviations by Arab rulers who for half a century have purposefully and pitilessly caged and stigmatized them as refugees, down to the fourth generation. - The salient attribute of any culture is originality and its legacies. Genius, no matter how rare, is a human universal. Out of Israel came monotheism, out of Greece philosophy, out of Arab civilization science and poetry, out of England the Magna Carta, out of France the Enlightenment. - What has been the genius of Palestinian originality, what has been the contribution of the evolving culture of Palestinian sectarianism? On the international scene: airplane hijackings and the murder of American diplomats in the 1970s, Olympic slaughterings and shipboard murders in the 1980s. And toward the Jews of the Holy Land, beginning in the 1920s and continuing until this morning, terror, terror, terror, terror. -A Palestinian ethos of figment and fantasy has successfully infiltrated the West, particularly among intellectuals, who are always seduced by novelty. We live now with an anti-history wherein cause and effect are reversed, protection against attack is equated with the brutality of attack, existential issues are demoted or ignored--"cycle of violence" obfuscations all zealously embraced by the State Department and the European Union. The Palestinians lead a pitiful existence, no one would argue that point. But it's happened by and large at the hands of fellow Arabs not Israel. The Palestinians could have such a wonderful future if they would just throw in their hats with Israel, which has a vested interest in making sure the Palestinians succeed. Instead the Palestinians continue to make the same mistake again of backing the self-serving Arab nations, whose goal of fanning the flames of hatred for Israel depends on the Palestinians' experiencing a life of failure and destitution.

Mr. Farrius, As I said before I'm a middle of the roader on abortion, probably like the majority of folks are. Many of us would say that therapeutic abortion for reasons of rape, incest, health complications of fetus or mother are arguably "acceptable" grounds for this procedure to be done and paid for by private insurance or universal health care coverage. I must say though I am troubled by increasingly loud, abrasive, almost a vulgar sort of boastful posturing about "constitutional privacy rights"[with no consequences or accountability, of course]to abortion on demand and to partial birth abortion. Though the above mentioned is legal, many people like me don't think it's right, and we certainly don't like the "legality" being shoved in our faces. This ugly rhetoric is not complimentary to the pro-abortion movement. To see abortion in terms of "bragging rights" or as a measure of how women have "progressed" is sick. Abortion is a necessary social evil. It's not a positive value to be celebrated and flaunted. Recently, an associate at work brought in an article about new super sensitive ultrasound technology that shows smiles and other expressions on a fetus's face at an early stage of development. At first the picture piqued everyone's interest and there were oohs and ahs from women followed by heavy silence. Fence sitters like myself were made uncomfortable by modern medicine putting a FACE on "it", and now it wasn't possible to avoid admitting that 2 human beings are affected by an abortion, not just a woman and an "it". And to tell you the truth, now when I look at the sleezy Britanny Spears look alikes cruising down the streets, hear about oral sex being done in a middle school classroom in the US, and see pictures on a newspaper front page of punk haired teenagers claiming their rights to smoking weed are being compromised by current laws, I say to myself which life has more value? The burned out, vapid breeder or the uncorrupted unborn person? How easy it was to assign the "it" position to the decadent grown up and for sympathy to be extended to the smiley faced baby with potential. So all I'm suggesting is that pro-abortion folks should just muzzle up and let sleeping dogs lie and feel happy with the current laws on the books, not be combative about partial birth abortion bans as they may come up in the press, because there is more to be lost than won. Sophisticated ultrasound technology will be coming to our community hospitals soon, and it will challenge the moral legitimacy of abortion in the minds of many who previously were content to be obliging fence-sitters.

The following is a lengthy new article[ Nov. 8] written by Juliet O'Neill published in the Ottawa Citizen. It updates facts and events regarding the Arar case and I encourage everyone to read the full text. Canada's dossier on Mr. Maher Arar I believe the Arar case presents an array of talking points for forum members. Some areas that come to mind: a) US-Canada relations This highly publicized, emotionally charged case has added extra strain to already tense Canadian-USA relations, with the press implying that the US authorities seized and deported a Canadian naturalized citizen to be brutalized by Syrian authorities, for no good reason other than because of his being of Arabic ancestory and because Ashcroft paranoia has infected US law enforcement's judgement. The US, on the otherhand, has said that they were only responding to signals and actions from Cdn. authorities and that Cdn. agencies and Cdn. politicians are working at cross purposes. Colin Powell said it was Canadian authorities passing on warnings to the US in the first place that caused them to question Arar and when Canada refused to allow Mr. Arar back to Canada, that gave the US no choice but to deport Arar to Syria, his birth country and whose citizenship Arar still kept. Canadian citizens in trouble abroad -is Cdn. gov't assistence given fairly or is it the squeaky wheel that gets more attention? There are questions about whether or not there has been fairness and consistency regarding to what lengths the PM and other gov't officials will go to argue on behalf of Canadians jailed abroad. Comparisons can be drawn between the cases of Mr. Arar vs Mr. Sampson for example. c)does a well respected military give diplomacy a psychological advantage? Are Canadian citizens when travelling on business or pleasure at greater risk if they run into problems with foreign governments because our country has no "muscle" to back up displomatic demands? That is to say, does having a respected military contribute a psychological advantage to a country's diplomatic efforts? Example, Mr. Sampson credits the UK government for getting him out of Saudi Arabia, along with a Brit cell mate and said the Cdn. gov't's diplomatic negotiating efforts were next to useless. Did it help the UK diplomats' negotiations with the Saudis to have 35,000 troops sitting next door in Iraq? Yes, no? d) gov't intelligence agencies vs politicians There's also a question of whether or not politicians are eroding the anti-terrorist efforts of Cdn. law enforcement agencies like CSIS and RCMP by their personal interventions on random cases. Or is that what politicians are supposed to do ie. be more responsive to the individual needs of each citizen, as they come up, even if it means over-riding the info gathered by "experts" in the field. e) national security/trusting open immigration policy Also, this case may generate a debate about Canada's national priorities and responsibilities to its citizens and to the global fight on terrorism. For example, is Canada being too lax in its immigration policies at the expense of national security? Or is an open trusting immigration policy what makes Canada an strong, diverse multi-cultural nation, even if it means there might be a small chance of attracting some potential "bad guys" from Islamic immigrant source nations, in particular, who may compromise national security? Does diversity trump security?

1. Are CBC's ratings and public criticism so bad that the CBC elite can no longer ignore the problems? 2. Is it time that CBC be weaned off the public purse and be expected to survive on merit by attracting individual as well as corporate donors like PBS and NPR does and getting only modest amounts of government grants? 3. Why is CBC paying an American based PR firm to help it out? Do you think it's offensive that a tax supported organization like CBC did not hire a Canadian PR firm to help it with its trouble shooting issues? CBC hires PR giant that excels at disasters -The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has hired one of the world's largest public relations firms, in part to help it deal with criticism of its news coverage and other programming. - The CBC has turned to Edelman Worldwide, a public relations firm based in New York that helped Exxon deal with the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, advised Microsoft on its anti-trust prosecution and was hired by New York City in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. - Ms. Soles would not discuss details of the contract, other than to say it was awarded after a competitive bidding process "in the last couple of months." She would not give the value of the consulting contract. - "I have to underline that this is not an unusual practice. Businesses and governments at every level do this."

Sir Riff, While it's true that no government is without some instances of corruption, the problem with Chretien and his lackeys is that they have racheted up the corruption ante to the Masters Level. Here's a good opinion article from the Calgary Sun that's on point with regards to Chretien's dubious "legacy." Corruption and Cronyism: the high cost of Chretien, Calgary Sun, Nov. 02 Yet another piece of damning evidence on Jean Chretien and his government’s dreary and drastic performances came down as this weekend neared. The Geneva-based World Economic Forum’s global competitiveness report showed our nation has fallen from ninth to 16th place in a world ranking of economic competitiveness. Just two years ago we were in second place. That news came just as we learned the U.S. economy grew by a staggering 7.2% in the third quarter of this year. More than double Canada’s growth rate. The forum, which surveyed 75 of Canada’s most powerful business executives, found their confidence nose-dived mainly because of the Chretien cabinet’s lackadaisical attitude towards corruption and its favouritism towards certain companies by government institutions. Added to those were concerns over strangling bureaucratic red tape and distortive government subsidies. Another indictment is the forum has now included government waste in its measurement. Here, the Chretien record must be gold star status. In addition, a new survey for the Centre on Research and Information on Canada found 44% of Canadians want stronger ties with the U.S., and that was an 18% increase since the start of the war in Iraq in March. That 44% of us want stronger ties with the U.S. shows Chretien — who has gone out of his way to insult President George W. Bush — truly has misjudged the yearnings of Canadians. In response to the World Economic Forum study, a spokesman for the federal foreign affairs and international trade department said Canadians should take the findings with a “grain of salt.” That’s strange, because when Federal Industry Minister Allan Rock spoke to the forum this past January he espoused how he considers the organization’s index a valid indicator of how a government really is performing. Rock, of course, is one of several influential cabinet ministers forced to confess to taking free trips and other hospitality from the powerful Irving family of New Brunswick, a family whose companies have surely benefitted from Liberal government policies and programs. Canadians should look carefully at the top 10 countries in the rankings and ask why we can’t be among them. In descending order, they are: Finland, the U.S., Sweden, Denmark, Taiwan, Singapore, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, and Australia. Perhaps it’s credible to see why the likes of the U.S., and the economic powerhouses of Taiwan and Singapore rate higher than we do, but surely — and we mean no offence — can’t we do better than Finland? In a finding more like a Monty Python skit than real life, the survey found that the tiny Mediterranean island of Malta, which will join the mighty European Union next year, now ranks just three points below Canada. What is happening in our country? Fortunately, and while we do not often praise Paul Martin, the prime minister-apparent does want to rebuild our relationship with the U.S. and he is beginning to balk at the way government conducts business with Crown corporations and the private sector. Martin’s warning that Via Rail shouldn’t count on the $700 million handout of taxpayers’ money promised by Chretien is a welcome sign. So, too, are reports Martin’s main thrusts will be at tax cuts and paying down the staggering $508 billion federal debt rather than continuing Chretien’s free-spending style and cronyism. Chretien’s 10 years in power really have been a decade of wasted opportunity for our country. Thankfully, that decade is finally coming to an end.

Depending on what political skeletons are revealed in this "candid " new book by LPOC insider and "bagman", Leo Kolber, Harper and the conservatives may get a "leg up" in voters minds as a result. Senator Leo Kolber's candid new book called "Leo-a life" reveals LPOC secrets - Mr. Kolber said he was "profoundly disturbed" by the wave of anti-Americanism that swept through Canada before and during the American invasion of Iraq in March 2003. "Feelings ran so high in our caucus that two senior ministers, David Collenette and Don Boudria, later suggested in all seriousness that U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci be expelled for stating the obvious," wrote Mr. Kolber. Happily, saner heads prevailed to prevent what would have been a virtual breaking of relations." - In his book, Mr. Kolber said he made a rare statement in the Senate on the topic of anti-Americanism last spring after denouncing Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish for her "idiotic outburst" about Americans when she stated that she hated "those bastards." - "I went on to address the issue of anti-Americanism, particularly in the larger context of hate mongering, which is a crime in Canada," he wrote. He stated that anti-Americanism is as unacceptable as anti-Semitism, anti-Arabic sentiment or "the dissemination of hatred against 'any identifiable group'." - The McGill-Queen's University Press book, which was released this week, is a surprisingly candid autobiography by the self-proclaimed Liberal "bagman" who raised millions of dollars for politicians over the years. He writes about his relationship with Mr. Trudeau, Prime Minister Jean Chretien and former prime minister Brian Mulroney. He also has tales from his 40 years of managing assets for the Bronfman family and turning Cadillac Fairview into the biggest real estate company in Canada in the 1970s. - He bluntly states that his attendance in the Senate was horrible until his last five years when he became chairman of the powerful Senate banking committee to hold hearings into bank mergers. - He is as blunt-spoken about that process, saying the government dumped a problem onto the committee's lap when it asked them to hold hearings to deflect attention from rumors of potential deals. He said Finance Minister John Manley, Maurizio Bevilacqua, the junior minister of finance, and Kevin Lynch, the deputy minister of finance, "stiffed the committee" by refusing to show up. - He also said his eyes were opened to the country's diversity when he travelled coast to coast asking for $25,000 donations from wealthy supporters of the Liberal party to retire the party's debt. - "It didn't matter where you went in the country, they had a beef about Canada and Ottawa ... In Vancouver, 'who the hell needs Canada, we've got the Pacific Rim.' In Calgary, with the national energy policy, 'why the hell are you guys interfering with us.' In Manitoba, the wheat board, Ontario 'we give more than our share.' For Quebec, I don't need to tell you, they got 400 things," said Mr. Kolber. - "In the Maritimes, everybody is broke and in Newfoundland, 80 per cent of them on the dole and they still say they would be better off joining the United States."

Bad news for Democrat Party Presidential hopefuls. Bush's tax cuts are paying off. More new jobs have been added for 3 months in a row. Ouch, that's got to hurt the doom and gloom soothsayers in the DNC. Improved USA employment figures are good for Bush. - As CNSNews.com previously reported, the U.S. Department of Labor announced Friday that American businesses added 126,000 new jobs in October, the third straight month of job growth. The nation's unemployment rate now stands at an even 6 percent, as compared to the September rate of 6.1 percent. - House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) had a more positive appraisal of the figures. Hastert noted that the economy grew at 7.2 percent in the third quarter of this year, the best quarterly growth rate since 1984, according to gross domestic product numbers released this week. - Combined with other recent data, Hastert observed that Friday's employment report shows that the economy has created more than 286,000 jobs in the last three months. - "It's all good news. The numbers are just phenomenal," said Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho). "During the 1990s, we had one of the longest economic expansions in history, and now, we are seeing that the U.S. has had one of the shortest and shallowest recessions in the past 50 years. - "President Bush and the Congress enacted sensible, pro-growth tax relief, and now, we are seeing the fruits of our labor," Craig concluded. - Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) echoed the positive outlook, adding that Friday's news is especially good when considered in light of the fact that last week was the fourth straight week in which jobless claims were below 400,000, dropping to 348,000. - "In headlines across America today, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said of the decrease in jobless claims that 'the odds... increasingly favor a revival in job creation,'" Wilson said. - Consumer spending is up. Business investment is up. And the stock market has gained over $2 trillion in value since last January," Hastert said. "Democrats say they want to raise taxes to pay for more Washington spending, but that is the worst thing we can do to keep this economy strong and create more jobs."

The unfortuanate fact that this article demonstrated is that the 2 biggest fans of Howard Dean are either dead[Maynard Jackson] or a DNC has-been failure[Donna Brazile]. Karl Rove probably liked reading it when it came out though.

I think the more pro-abortion fans press their case with self-righteous rhetoric about women's "rights" to killing children, thereby putting an innocent sad face on the snuffee and a gleeful face on the snuffer wearing a "women rule" T-shirt...it's all going to have a blow-back effect. People like me, who have been fence-sitters on this issue because we didn't want to think about it too much, are suddenly having their faces pushed into some very ugly, ugly imagery that is being justified by platitudes about "rights" and then fence sitting is not so easy anymore. Also, not to be tacky or anything, but since part of the"abortion rights" schtick involves relating "privacy" to the "right" to abort, then why don't these very same private people pay for their private elective medical procedures? Why is a taxpayer like myself expected to pick up the tab for other peoples' immoral decisions if this is so private and personal? If people want freedom and privacy then they should pay for the consequences on their own dime. Right now, the partial birth abortion issue is getting a lot of press in the USA. Abortion advocates are cheering and hugging themselves gleefully that they have managed to get judges across the nation to put a ban on the new law Bush and Congress just passed, saying this means it will be bumped up to the Supreme Court again. What is the celebration about? Up until 6 months ago, a person like me with 2 college degrees did not have a clue about what the process involved. Now with all this press courtesy of abortion advocates, I am oh-so much wiser about the barbaric procedure called partial birth abortion. I do not think I am the only rube who has received this terrific enlightenment. Because the abortion advocates have made such a grand old fuss about a new law, that has zero effect on existing early trimester abortions, more people like me are getting quite an education and the enhanced big picture view of abortion is not flattering to the pro-abortion movement. Also, consider that some of the Supreme Court justices have admitted they are very "sensitive" to social attitudinal changes. So as American society gets more outraged about this partial birth abortion thing, it may affect what the Supreme Court outcome is, keeping in mind that Roe vs Wade was decided on very tenous legal grounds in the first place. P. S. What does wiping out rape, murder, and kidnapping have to do with a very basic truism that society has an obligation to protect its young? I don't get your point.

1. Mr. Farrius, Regarding your question about "what I'm saying" by comparing 10, 000 French civilian deaths in 2 weeks versus less than 300 GI deaths in 6 months of war....I thought I was pretty clear the first time around in my response to the initial claim on this thread that many troops are dying and the White House doesn't care...but I'll give it another try... I don't believe that "many", as in 300 soldiers deaths in the course of a 6 month war, is a credible example of Bush's indifference/insensitivity to GI deaths. While every death of a soldier is a sad death, 300 GI's dying in the course of 6 months is an amazingly low figure. Let's consider that France lost 20x that number in civilian deaths in a peaceful environment in the course of 2 weeks. And Jacques Chirac did not even return from his vacation in Quebec, when his country was facing a major crisis. There's your example of a government's indifference to its citizens' deaths, not 300 soldiers in 6 months in war. Did you ever consider that the reason there are so few GI deaths in the Iraq war thusfar is because the US government has made its military the best equipped and best protected in the world? That's not called government indifference. Indifference is putting soldiers out in crash friendly Sea King helicopters. Indifference is sending soldiers to arid, mine ridden Afghanistan in green military uniforms driving lightweight little Jeeps. It's all just putting things in proper perspective is what I mean. 2. Crusader, Nice article but what is your point? I never said Halliburton wouldn't be making profits from a war. Halliburton is one of the world's most successful for-profit defense contractors. Of course it makes money in a war. But then again, who else is supposed to perform the re-construction work if not a major defense contractor like Halliburton...NYT reporters, social workers, the Sierra Club, trial lawyers? Halliburton does not donate the services of its highly specialized, highly paid staff to gov't agencies that hire it to build dams, put out oil fires, raze nuclear power plants, whatever. Halliburton employs over 100,000 people...it bids jobs in a way to pay its vast payroll as well as to make a profit for its shareholders. Pretty straight forward capitalism at work. What I said in my previous post that you seem to ignore was that there is a standard transparent government bidding system in place and the best firm with the best price wins the contract. As I recall, the USA and its current Admin. got good ratings in recent int'l indices of competitiveness and government corruption. Fyi, Halliburton won a retainer bid under Clinton's Admin. so a portion of the jobs it is doing in Iraq now is a result of a decision made by Slick Willy Clinton and the bleeding heart Democrats. Sorry to disabuse you of the notion that Bush and Cheney are forcing the government to use the services of an incompetent ,no-name brand firm like Halliburton for their own personal profits. That's not to say that Halliburton is angelic by any means. What would anyone expect ? Halliburton is a corporation like all the rest out there trying to survive in a cut throat business environment. But if you need a defence contractor to do a difficult re-construction job on a timely basis in a hazardous situation, based on what I've read in technical journals, Halliburton is one of the premier companies you can hire. For example there are only 2 highly regarded companies I am aware of that have a specialized staff who can handle the capping of oil well fires...one is Halliburton and the other is a French firm. Halliburton is very good at what it does. That's why Clinton put them on a retainer, I guess. Fables of reconstruction or how Halliburton gets no favouritism Halliburton: the Bush/Iraq scandal that wasn't

The good doctor may win to represent the DNC in the Presidential election, because the 8 other dwarfs he is running against are less appealing than he is and he would not need the support of the South at that point. But Dean's recent faux pas about Confederate flags and pick up trucks, not to mention his apology suggesting that blacks may have been too stupid to understand the insult in the first place, has done irrepairable harm to him , IMHO, with the South. Dean is shaping up to be everything Karl Rove has dreamed about as a Democrat candidate to face off against George Bush in 2004. Howard Dean's arrogance -One day after the Rock the Vote debate turned into a debacle for Dean when he declined to disavow his previous declaration that he wanted to be the candidate of the Confederate flag cohort, the former Vermont governor shifted into damage-control mode. Speaking at Cooper Union in Manhattan on Wednesday, Dean said he considered the Confederate flag a "reminder of racial injustice and slavery," stressed that he did not condone its use, and expressed regrets for "the pain I may have caused either to African-American or Southern white voters." - Still, several nagging questions linger. The Confederate flag faux pas was the silliest sort of rookie mistake -- which is exactly what makes it a disturbing blunder in a man trying to operate at the apex of American politics. Once the gaffe was committed, a simple apology early in Tuesday's forum would have spared Dean the televised trouncing he took. And ended a controversy that had already simmered for several days. - Dean's Cooper Union regrets had a significant aspect of the weasel- word apology about them. Take, for example, this comment: "Many people in the African-American community have supported what I have said in the past few days, because they understand. Some have not, so I say to those, I deeply regret the pain I may have caused." - That is easily interpreted this way: I regret the pain I may have caused anyone who didn't understand what I was saying. - Indeed, some news accounts and some rivals have asserted that Dean refused to apologize in his Cooper Union remarks.

Even though many of us tolerate the laws regarding abortion, there's a dissonant ring for me when I read "Free citizens should have the right to abort their own children or not. I don't understand why you right wingers think that you can interfere with what a woman wishes to do with her child. " Too many conflicting images and a bit too Orwellian for my taste. Examples: Is one of the perks for living in a democracy getting the freedom to abort life at will? Does society bear no responsibilty, no obligation to protect children, albeit, even from parents?

Slavik 44 and Sir Riff, I admit I used poetic license when I said we could have all ended up speaking German. We'll never know if Germany would have made a move on North America after conquering Europe. But my post was a response to Sir Riff's comments, wherein he said that the USA should act in "true humanitarian and democratic interests." You can't deny that a turning point in the allies fight against the axis powers was when the USA entered the picture. Admitting that fact does not take away from the efforts of Russia and Britain and Canada. But victory looked uncertain for Europe until the Yanks threw their hats in. I'd say their decision was a very signifigant action in the name of "democratic interests." Why else? The USA could have continued to sit the war out. Some historians have suggested that the President knew in advance about the Pearl Harbor attack but took no defensive tact, because he needed an "attack" by an axis power to justify America's entry into the war. He saw this war was a fight between democracy and facism and as such it was a good war for America to fight. With regards to the USA's generosity, just because the Yanks have the largest, most successful economy in the world, how does that compel them to give 2 cents to the UN? Do you think that Americans get that successful economy resting on their laurels with Fate handing it to them on a platter? The USA could choose to spend every last dime of profits the country earns on their own people. Actually, some Americans think that with the current anti-American bile that's so pervasive in the UN, the USA should not be so generous with foreign aid and UN dues. It certainly doesn't buy them any good will. What exactly does the USA get out of keeping the UN afloat, because you have to realize that the USA is single most generous nation to that pathetic organization. As for Iraq, the USA has completed its job of ousting Saddam and its precision bombing has not caused much structural damage. The aged Iraqi infa-structure is a result of Saddam mis-spending oil money on his palaces and military. The USA is not to blame for his selfishness. Besides, the UN is bleating that the USA should give Iraq back to the people and let them run the country. So based on that request alone, there's no need for the US taxpayers to fork over $20 Billion. As for Afghanistan, let's get real, there was never anything there, so bombing a bunch of caves doesn't exactly require the USA to pay for "re-construction." It sticks like a craw in one's throat to admit that all the $ that the Yanks are focusing on Afghanistan and Iraq and Africa and many other countries is actually pretty darn generous of them. Fyi, $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa is more than chump change. How many other countries - the rich EU, for example - even comes close to that figure? As for claiming that the US is the biggest "reaper of dictators"..err, so if it weren't for the USA, the trains of the world would be running on time and we'd all be singing kumbyejah across all the time zones. Look at all the thugs and dictators currently warming the chairs of the UN General Assembly - the USA installed them all? Let's go down the list...Mugabe, Quadafi,Castro, Assad, to name a few...dictators are, they have been, they will always be. They would exist with or without the USA's help. And before one throws stones at the USA, be sure that one's abode is not made of glass. What about Castro in Cuba? You think Chretien's generosity to Castro doesn't help perpetuate a "bad guy" in power? You think Castro uses the money to establish newspapers for his people to have free expression? Or maybe Castro uses Canada's money so some of his people can get PhD's in the science of human rights? As for "standing up" to our 2 best allies, the Brits and the Yanks...I don't see the long range wisdom in that manoever, especially since one of the allies is Canada's best business partner and represents 40% of our economy.Some of the coalition countries sent a handful of troops, some just gave "reconstruction" pledges...that's all it would have taken to show support of the US/UK endeavour to rid the world of a known pathological dictator. But no, Chretien sided with the axis of weasels, [France, Russia, and Germany] so as to respect Iraq's "sovereignity" and Saddam's right to rule. Very noble. No to forget that nasty little personal Chretien connection to oil contracts signed by Totalfinaelf and Saddam and how those contracts would only be honoured if Saddam continued to stay in power. Chretien's son-in-law and good friend Paul Desmarais had a major stake in Totalfinaelf. As for Canada "asserting" itself with Iran or Syria or Lebanon or Saudi Arabia, it takes more than a pale faced weanie Canadian politician voicing "displeasure" to a reporter from CBC to make those countries tow the line. Canada has no presence, no influence, no respect from ME countries because Canada is perceived to be weak. You don't think those countries read the news reports about Canada's military? When you have decrepid Sea King helicopters crashing more often than flying; when Cdn. troops in Afghanistan require German body guards because they don't have appropriate weapons; when troops in Afghanistan have to share protective clothing with their counterparts in Bosnia...the ME dictators just have a good laugh. They're probably saying to themselves that Chretien has nothing to back up his demands except hot air. Politics is no different than business. Alot of deals are made based on image, on positioning, on stance. Chretien and the LPOC, not me, have reduced Canada's stature in the world. Don't get mad at me for things done on Chretien's watch. Btw, I believe the only reason that Mr. Sampson got out alive was because Britain argued "persuasively" on his behalf as well as for a British cell mate. You may recall that this successful negotiation took place AFTER Britain had its troops sitting next door in Iraq. What does that tell you?

Japan is in a very dangerous location - it's within easy striking distance of N.Korea, which most people would agree, is currently being run by a wacky, unpredictable nutbar. It's not too far from Pakistan, that's not real stable either and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. I don't doubt that Japan is considering a philosophy of pre-emptive strike. Do you blame them? Political realities have changed radically since 1945 when Japan was the aggressor. In 2003, Japan is in self-defense mode. But Japan re-militarizing itself as a national defense policy doesn't worry me one bit. I feel - hopefully not wrongly - that Japan would be circumspect in its use of weaponry unlike less sophisticated countries near it. With regards to Japan never "apologizing" for war time aggression...I'm sure there's a very important symbolic meaning to this omission but quite frankly this apology nit-picking sounds like a feel good useless effort that's just meant to rub Japan's nose in poo that's almost 60 year's old. Next we'll have the UN demanding that Europe apologize to the Middle East for the Crusades. Where's the common sense in politics these days? That Japan has not made "reparation" payments to Korea for "comfort women" is a tricky issue, in my opinion. In 1965 Japan paid Korea almost $200 Billion yen as reparations for the war. As well, all Japanese assets were left in Korea, amounting to about 6 billion US dollars at that time. The Korean government agreed to not file any future claims against Japan. And Korea did not stipulate any accomodation for individual Koreans to pursue Japan separately. North Korea did not get anything from Japan, but I think it was largely a result of S. Korea's insistence that it was the only "legitimate" government representing the entire peninsula and therefore, it should get the whole wad for Koreans as a whole. If "ex-comfort women" are upset that the S. Korean government did not share reparations payments with them, I think it's S.Korea "poor faith" use of funds paid to them by Japan. I realize that there was a UN Tribunal ruling at the Hague in December of 2001 that said Japan needed to pay "ex-comfort women" reparation payments and apologize, too, but I think that judgement was a stretch and PC thinking based. There's no doubt that over 200,000 women were treated shamefully by Japanese soldiers during the war, but how many times does a country need to pay for historical crimes? Furthermore, in Japan's case, it had already paid Korea war reparations and Korea failed to adequately compensate its women, though that's even disputable, because there are accounts that Korea made an effort to compensate "comfort women" in the 1970's with money accepted earlier from Japan. Regarding contaminated weapons dumbs- I'm not sure what you mean...spelling error? did you mean cleaning up the chemical weapons drums abandoned by the Japanese army in China at the end of the Second World War? If that's what you mean, yes, that is a very big problem for Japan. I think they have about another 8 years to complete that project based on a Chemical Weapons accord they signed onto in 1997. Japan has hardly started the project, nor do they have the proper facilities to dispose of the poisonous weapons containers once they are located in China. Japan has a lot of costly work ahead of it.