Morgan

I disagree with you, maplesyrup. a) Bush had every right to welcome the men home with his visit to the carrier. He is Commander and Chief of the Military and since the President is directly elected by American voters, unlike the Cdn. PM who comes to office by a "proxy" appointment, what better person to express America's appreciation to the GI's for a job well done than by the representative of the people occupying the highest elected office in the land. Btw, the troops were super honoured by Bush's visit! The only folks "roundly criticizing" Bush were dog-in-the-manger Democrats and left wing media. Typical. The Left always loves to rain on the GI's parade due to their own petty jealousy. Same thing happened with Bush's Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad. c) When Clinton was President, he did similar "morale boosting" ceremonial visits to the military, and the left wing media pundits like Peter Jennings did not "roundly criticize" Clinton. President Clinton is piped aboard the USS Independence Clinton greeting soldiers in Hungary in his leather flight jacket President Clinton aboard the USS Independence Flashback to Prez Clinton's visit to USS Roosevelt in 1993 when his entourage stole the silver and towels. d) The banner said "mission accomplished." Got a problem with that, maplesyrup? Saddam was removed...or rather he moved his psycho body from the presidential palace to the spider hole where he belonged. e) President Bush was not running for office when he met the returning troops on USS Abraham Lincoln. Bush was President at the time. Still in denial, maplesyrup? f) The only office that is appropriate for Clarkson is a CBC office. That fits her to a T. I'm not a big fan of the Gov. General's office to begin with, but to have Clarkson appt'd makes people like me even more resolved that the Gov. General's office is useless and a waste of money. g) What a nice thought...so "egalitarian of you...you hope that Clarkson bought a round of drinks for Canadian troops? He, he. Maybe she would do better by the troops by donating her salary and travel allowance to the military so they could buy decent bullet proof vests and other equipment that they need. Knocking back mugs of beer with an ex-CBC media hack is not what the chronically under funded Cdn. troops need, thank you very much.

Michael Moore and the socialists at MoveOn.org have hit new lows, IMHO, in terms of abusing free speech. Per the Drudge Report, MoveOn and Moore are conducting a contest for the best 30 second ad to spread the "truth" about President Bush. The top 15 finalists will have their "work" judged by a panel of judges which include Michael Moore, Donna Brazile, Jack Black, Janeane Garofalo, Margaret Cho and Gus Van Sant. Donna Braile was the Gore campaign head honcho. Their contest website featured an ad comparing Bush to Hitler, which was later pulled once Drudge got wind of it. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm The contest website is at: http://www.bushin30seconds.org/ a) What do you think? Is this free speech or hate speech? Will there be a backlash against MoveOn and Moore? Or will MoveOn do damage to Bush's re-election campaign with these type of ads? c) Should the White House respond? or ignore?

Fleabag, 1. See that's the problem with left wing thinkers. You present them with fact, logic and then their fall back position is always something that is totally irrational like "You can't force me to take a mature, thoughtful stand on political issues" or "History has it's limits...biblical history is a farce..." Oh do tell. Stands are pretty easy to take when they smack of being anti-Bush. And history, biblical or military, has limits only when it shows your position has ZERO logical support for Palestinians claim about their pseudo historic, Biblical right of return. Otherwise, the left is quite happy to drag out history to blame conservative figures or to explain their own illegal behaviour. Examples:-America invaded Iraq for the oil in 2003 just like they were going to do in 1973.- There's a picture of Rumsfield shaking Saddam's hand in the 70's, so that means Rumsfield has no moral right to depose Saddam in 2003. -Arnie had group sex when he was in his 20's so that means he is not a role model to run for Governor when he's in his 50's. -America took sides with the Taliban in their fight against Russia in the 80's, so terrorism in Afghanistan is America's fault. -It's okay for illegal immigrants from Mexico to live off the welfare rolls in California, because Mexico lost the Spanish American war and the winner needs to take care of the losers. It's the Geneva Convention you know. Blah, blah, blah. Face facts. The Palestinians have ZERO historical or military claim to a Palestinian state. It's obvious. If Israel chooses to give them land to establish a state in hopes to buy "goodwill" from the established Arab states in the ME, it's up to Israel. Personally, I wouldn't if I were in the Israelis' position. The Palestinian Arabs have consistently shown themselves incapable of conducting themselves as people ready for their own nation. Palestinians and the world would be better off if Jordan assimilated them, and Arafat and his thug friends were forced into exile. End of story. 2. Since I started this discussion with a focus on foreign aid, I'm pleased to post a new article that's hot off the wires re: a new approach to the way the US will dole out aid in the future. Uncle Arafat as well as Egypt and Jordan better listen up. No more "spare change" from Egypt and Jordan to pass along to Palestinians for "intifada wars." Even though it appears that Uncle Arafat likes to skip baths for months and live in a hole in the wall in Ramallah, he can't let his personal hygenic preferences overshadow his responsibilities as a political leader to better the health and living conditions for his people: US to begin new approach to doling out Foreign Aid, Jan.04/04 New York Post

New revelations about Dean's actions[or inactions]as Governor of Vermont. As though his mangled ideas are not bad enough, Dean's behaviour is telling. Dean ignored repeated warnings about the vulnerability of nuclear power plants in Vermont. Ouch. Bet the folks in heartland America are not amused by this discovery. He,he. Howard Dean was repeatedly warned about nuke vulnerability, FOX News, Jan.3/04

Fleabag, Of course you have to choose sides. To do anything less is putting your head in the sand. It's clear that Israel has both an historical and military right to its territory. Palestinians cannot claim either right. "Palestinians" are generic Arabs. The name "Palestinians" did not appear until the 17th century. URL=http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003690]WSJ June 30/03 Israel's historical right to nationhood[/url] I agree with Craig. Palestinians should live in Jordan. That was their designated country by the British, the former ruler in that area. Plus as Craig points out, Jordan is comprised 2/3 of Palestinians already, has an established system of basic government services that Arafat cannot wreck, with a "nice guy" benign leader who would be a heck of alot better for Palestinians than the terrorist they have now. Let Arafat go back to Egypt. He's not even "Palestinian" for gosh sakes. Arafat is an Egyptian. Or maybe Arafat can move to Paris where his wife and kid live and play bingo with Chirac. Or maybe Arafat could work as Maurice Strong's gofer at the UN. The UN can never have too many corrupt guys working for them.

This crash is very suspicious indeed. 1. The Egyptians were too quick to claim "mechanical" problems were the cause especially in light of the fact that the plane just had maintenance done in Norway and had passed routine mechanical and safety checks in Venice before it left Italy. 2. Tony Blair and his family were vacationing at the Sharm-el-Sheik resort, meeting place for earlier discussions about the "roadmap" for peace between Israel and Palestine. 3. Egypt and the Palestinians had a public spat at the end of December about the Egyptian envoy being attacked while on a peace-effort visit there. 4. The weather was clear. 5. There was no distress signal. 6. Very small pieces of debris. Egyptian jet chartered by mainly French tourists crashes into Red Sea, FOX News, Jan.03/03 And a blogger's take on the crash: Eight reasons why the Egyptian plane crash might have been terrorism

JohnM, I think the following comments and pictures speak volumes about the monumnetal task that lies ahead for the US/UK WMD inspectors and it puts into question any remarks made by wide-eyed Hans Blix and his merry men in Land Cruisers who were led in circles by Saddam and da' boys. Pictures of a MIG-25 found covered underground in Iraq are provided through a link on an Iraqi blogger'ssite called "Iraq at a glance." here's what the Iraqi blogger says: MIC aircraft discovered hidden under sand in the desert in Iraq Here's the specific url for the actual pictures of the MIG-25: http://cryptome.org/iraq-mig.htm I rest my case.

1. ModerateCentristsaid: I know violent is increasing but you don't want to believe it. Criminal violence on the rise in Canada according to new Fraser Institute study, Nov.27/03 2. I believe that murderers should suffer consequences. Sitting in jail for 20-25 years getting a law degree and having sex once a week is not my idea of punishment to fit the crime. Liberals who want to show mercy to murderers should pay an extra tax levy to pay for housing these blights to society and to babysit them with parole officers for life after release. Showing mercy to murderers is a recent new pet hobby horse for bleeding heart liberals. Why don't they pay for their hobbies? Keeping murderers alive is not a contribution to society like fire, police, roads, schools. Keeping murderers alive is in keeping with a particular political philosophy, so adherents can pay to support this belief system. For example, after Holly's murderer is caught, I don't want him to get a dime of regular tax money to extend his life beyond a trial and guilty verdict thank you very much. Those who want to save his soul, should pay for his incarceration. If there's as many anti-death penalty advocates as you and Goldie and Brainiac imply exist, there should be no problem raising funds. And those same murderers turn into highly productive people in such a short time, I'm told, that they could repay the money in no time flat. Maybe you abolitionists along with productive newly released murderers could set up a continually renewing murderers bursury fund?Saving murderers with focused tax payer funds becomes a win-win situation for all, don't you think?

Good points, Neal, all of them. Are the Politically Correct Thought/Behaviour Nazis running our businesses and our towns these days? Why don't gays keep their sexuality in the bedrooms where heterosexuals keep theirs? Why don't we start having AARP conventions or 7th Day Adventists frequenting gay bars and gay resorts? Why don't we organize "breeders parades" and have pregnant and nursing mothers and Dads with their noisy kids marching right behind gays in parades? Why don't we get into gays' faces at every opportunity like they do to heteros and make gays love us, because tolerance isn't quite enough?

ModerateCentrist, You have no room to talk about ignoring statistics. I just quoted an article that showed violent gun deaths have gone up in Toronto in one year by 35% and you ignore it. You did not answer my question...would you pay an extra tax levy to support murderers for life imprisonment? I'll bet not. As long as support for murderers comes out of the general Treasury, you are happy to wrap yourself in sanctity of life philosophy and "other noble and civilized reasons" I'm sure. The reason that there are so many legal costs associated with violent criminals is because waivering bleeding heart ninnies question the judge and jury system of justice and can't believe that sometimes incorrigible evil exists in hearts of men. Ergo, countless appeals as second guessing of our justice system. People like me would never put $ in the pockets of lawyers if we had our way. One appeal, that's it. Then it's" see you, don't bother to write, the Almighty Maker show will show mercy to you when you get there." Exactly what "suffering" do lifers experience? Enlighten me on the subject. Oh puhlease, more women would die if abortion was struck down...and that's why you support it...give me a break. I don't recall women dying left and right in my mother and grandmother's day due to no abortion access. Women and men respected themselves in those days and did not need abortion-on-demand and claim it as a "human right." How ironic. As for liberal conspiracies...you're the only one that always cites that phrase when we discuss crime stats, no one else...maybe you believe it to be so? I don't...but I do believe that stats can be manipulated to prove a certain point.

1. Michael Hardner, I agree with Craig's evaluation of Dean. Dean is well educated and may have been a good physician, but he has no political smarts to qualify him for leading a country, much less a super power. Even well known Democrats have reservations about Dean's leadership abilities. Read Carville's comments as follows: Transcript of CNN's Crossfire interview with Carville Dec.29/03 Carville said: Here's a website with Dean's gaffe's. Bush sometimes says muddles words, but Dean speaks muddled ideas. Dean's gaffes 2. SirRiff, All democracies elect well educated leaders now adays-it's a given-but some leaders have better political smarts than others. For example, Joe Clark is evidently a very smart man IQ wise and Turner was a very accomplished man business wise, but neither could hold a candle to the innate political smarts possessed by Jean Chretien, who barely passed law school. Jimmy Carter apparently was a brilliant man, but he'll go down as one of America's most ineffectual Presidents. I wouldn't trust Carter to babysit my pet parakeet.

Brainiac, Here's what would change people's minds about the death penalty: Corrections statistics - who cares?- certainly criminals don't read them. You think Corrections statistics give police a greater sense of confidence when they patrol the streets of Toronto? Left wing touchy feely types are big on enforcing hate speech and gun registries, but when it comes to being tough on violent crime they prefer to offer murderers the possibility for earning a law degree behind bars or rainbow coloured condoms to fight sex ennui.

Flea said: Where's your link to the article that gives statistics/poll results to support your claim that "most in Israel" do not accept a notion of a Palestinian state? 1. Golly gee, if my memory serves me right, just 3 short years ago, Israeli PM Barak(whom I assume represented the majority of Israelis since he was duly elected) agreed to statehood for Palestinians along with 99% of their other demands. BUT Yassar Arafat threw the Camp David Accord in Barak's face because Arafat INSISTED that East Jerusalem - with its important religious sites - be the capital of a future Palestinian state. So tell me again which side is coveting religious sites in the Holy Land...but this time please support your claims. 2. Fast forward three years later we hear that Israel is so desperate for peace that Sharon is even willing to work with Egypt to broker peace with Palestinians, against the best judgement of the USA...and then what do we hear at the end of December...same story...the Palestinians thumb their noses at Israel AND Egypt, even going so far as to beat up the Egyptian envoy. So tell me again about those hard line Israelis again...but this time put your glasses on, Flea, when you're reading the newspapers...it's PALESTINIANS who don't want dual states living side by side. They want all of Israel. They sabotage dual statehood talks every chance they get. 3. Even the Egyptians say Palestinians are nuts, their own worst enemies, and if it weren't for the Palestinians' hatred and mischief, countries like Egypt could have lived in peaceful co-existence with Israel since 1973. Think about it, Flea. Arabs themselves are now labelling Palestinians as s**t disturbers in the ME. It's no accident that Kuwait expelled 350,000 Palestinian residents right after the first Gulf War. Pronto. No if's but's or maybe's. Get lost, the Kuwaitis said and no one said boo. Palestinians in Lebanon are subject to severe restrictions on work, residence, travel, education, and political organization and expression to keep them from causing trouble. No one says boo. Well, of course, it's Syria/Lebanon's right. Syria did take over Lebanon, didn't it? But when the Israelis erect a wall to protect themselves from terrorism and the wall is running through land that rightfully belongs to Israel, the mindless yahoos in CBC and the UN are in a tizzy and say the wall just proves Israel doesn't want a nation for Palestinians, it shows no respect for Palestinians. 4. The road map for peace is stupid. I have no doubt that Sharon was cynical about its merits and had to be forced to sign on. Been there, done that...same results. IMHO, Rice, Powell, Bush, Blair are stupid for thinking the road map can be anything more than nice photo ops. Hello, people...no peace can come with Arafat and his thugs at the leadership, who openly support and sanction terrorism. Corruption at that top and in middle management can not make for a successful compant or state for that matter. The PA's mental illness of hate is now being promoted in the young with the Friday sermons. There won't be a functional state of Palestinine for a very, very long time as far as I'm concerned road maps or not. Tell me. Would you want to live across the border from Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and the dozen or more Palestinian "jihadists? " You'd want him as your next neighbour? Oh, oh, I get it now...you believe people can change with love and understanding. Get real. 4. You talk about cartoons about Palestinians - show me the links - no Israeli newspaper ever would refer to Jews as monkeys and vampires, but Arab newspapers do on a routine basis. No Israeli leader today calls for suicide bombers against civilians and refers to these filthy murderers as "martyrs," but the Palestinian's leader does that very thing 24/7. Mein Kempf is a bestseller in Arab countries. And here's what the very civilized left wing elite in the UK picked as their best political cartoon of the year[Nov.26/03 via Instapundit] to show how much they love to denigrate Israel and its leaders. Israel would never give such an "honour" to an anti-Muslim cartoon. In fact, Israelis have some of the greatest numbers of left wing bleeding hearts in the world and it's this naive mindset, IMHO, that puts Israel at peril when negotiating with the likes of Arafat and the stooges at the UN. Prize winning UK cartoon about Sharon is protested by Israel Embassy in London To give this cartoon an award is something which should make all the "enlightened, so called neutral" ME peaceniks in the West, including Canada, hang their heads in shame.

Gloria said: Fighting words like those re: saving the lives of murderers are what make me proud to say I'm a Canadian. Saddam and Holly's killer can count on us when their lives hang in the balance. I'm curious... a) Would you fight tooth and nail to prevent euthanasia laws being passed in Canada? Would you fight tooth and nail to strike down abortion on demand laws? Or is life sacred only on certain days of the week or when life can't speak for itself? I'll juxtapose 2 "articles" about violent crime, one from a Toronto police officer's perspective and another from a civilian Iraqi blogger. And before any of you say, oh, an Iraqi, primitive person living in the midst of anarchy, what do you expect? This Iraqi is a well educated dentist. He's living in a country under martial law but when there's no death penalty, and the criminals on the street know it, all hell breaks out everyday regardless of how many coation troops and Iraqi police on the streets. The crime the Iraqi dentist speaks of is not terrorism. It's ordinary violent crime committed by violent humans who have no respect for others, but know "their rights" oh so well. And as violent crime escalates in Canada as it is in other EU democracies, and there are more criminals being re-cycled into Canadian streets, 10 years from now we'll see if you still are fighting tooth and nail against reinstatement of the death penalty. Gun violence is up 35% in Toronto this year. Criminals forgot to register their guns. Dec.31/03 TO Sun Death penalty should be reinstated to Iraq says "Healing Iraq" blogger We have barbarians in our midst. They may look like us, talk like us, but they are barbarians nonetheless. Every society has them. Baghdad has more of them now than Toronto does. But these violent criminals across the world have more in common with each other than they do with their fellow law abiding nationals. It's insulting to pro-death penalty advocates like me that I should have my tax dollars pay for murderers' food, their health care, their education, their condoms, their tooth brushes so abolitionists can feel all warm and fuzzy about their inclusive sense of humanity. If death penalty abolitionists had to pay a special tax levy to keep these murderers alive for life, I'll bet most of them would lose their belief in the sanctity of life mighty quick. Hugo, I believe you are one of the few sincere death penalty advocates I've ever met, because you don't beieve in either abortion or death penalty, but I'll wager that 60% -70% of death penalty advocates are also advocates for abortion, euthanasia, rationed socialized medicine which fly in the face of "all life is sacred" hooey they preach to "rednecks" like myself. That the giant brained Supreme Court justices ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional does not suprise me one bit. The Charter of Human Rights was written by Liberal politicians-former lawyers who didn't personally believe in the death penalty[Chretien was Justice Minister at the time and his high priest was PET] so the "fix" was in right from the start. Btw, are any of the hallowed Supreme Court justices former prosecutors? I'll bet zero. Postscript: I believe that abortion as well as the death penalty are necessary evils of society, whether you live in Baghdad or Toronto.

This was the familiar refrain when the war started, and for the life of me I could not make any sense of it. In 1973 there was an embargo. In 2003 there was no embargo...not even an itty bitty hint of one. America did not need Iraq's oil in 2003 and if America would have needed it, Saddam would sell oil to them in an insta-second. Saddam liked the sound of money going into his Swiss bank accounts, don't you know. It would have been a whole lot cheaper to buy oil from Saddam than to invade Iraq and pay for its reconstruction. America's main suppliers today are not the Middle Eastern countries. In 2003 America's main suppliers are Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezula keep America well supplied. Only Saudi Arabia is in the ME last I heard. If America wanted to take over a country's oil resources, it would have been easier to invade Canada. There would be no fight, no military,no guns in homes, most people are in a socialist stupor anyways. Easy pickings. Just let CBC do its evening news every night and no Canadian would know the Americans had taken over the country. Yawn...zzzz. The countries that were desperate for Iraq's oil in 2003 and forever more are France and Germany. Those were the 2 countries who did not want Saddam removed, if you will recall. Those are the 2 countries whose economies are in the toilet now. So sad. Those are the 2 wolves in sheep's clothing who sad "Give Saddam 3000 more chances. "

Fleabag, If Israel needs water, then all the more reason for them to hold on to THEIR Golan territory. And logically, as victor, Israel should hold on to every square inch of land it won until the Palestinians establish a track record for behaving in a peaceful fashion. Why should Israel give up its ace "trading" cards to reward terrorism and hate? That would be totally irrational. It's all very nice for President Bush and Colin Powell to pontificate about a road map for peace, when they're comfortably esconced thousands of miles away in DC. I've read that Bush won't even be in the same room as Arafat and yet he expects Israel to negotiate "peace" with this same terrorist? Even allies of the "Palestinian cause" are having second thoughts about the intentions of the Palestinians. Will they ever live peacefully?It looks like the Egyptians are poised to wash their hands of the Palestinians. Egyptian Media trash Palestinians, Jan.01/04, WorldNetDaily

Flea, Thanks for your feedback to the first 2 items. Maybe I packed too many "discussion points" in one topic? If so, my apologies. Anyways, I agree with you and more. I believe that foreign aid requires some level of acknowledgement from the receipients and re-payment in terms of living up to some positive goals by the donors. Why should Arafat and the Palestinians automatically expect foreign without doing something to show they deserve it? And that goes for other Third World countries. too. What are they and their leaders doing to change their self-defeating or dangerous behaviour? It boogles my mind that the West hands over billions of dollars to these countries with no accountability and no demand for change. Maybe if the Palestinians were required to turf Arafat before getting a dime and maybe if the Palestinians were required to show new housing developments, schools, hospitals EACH YEAR before aid was renewed the world would be better off.

Hugo, I respect the consistency of your beliefs about abortion and capital punishment. But I cannot agree with you that all human life is "valuable." The person who killed Laci Peterson and her full term baby may be "precious" to you but not to me. Also, by not implementing the death penalty, in my opinion, shows a clear disregard for the value of the murder victim's life and potential murder victim's life whose life might be spared because a criminal has second thoughts about paying for his evil deed with his life. I believe that if mercy is to be shown for the life of a cold blooded murderer, it should come in the hereafter and be doled out by a higher power. This is a mortal world and the best we mortals can do is to dispense justice. Striving for a "compassionate" society is not high on my list. Striving for a fair society is important to me. You say: "Dangerous slope" is always acquiescing to the life before you. Abolishing the death penalty but allowing abortion on demand are 2 examples of this "slippery slope" behaviour in my opinion. You say: I disagree. Prisoners can still vote which is one of the most valued "rights" in a democracy. Prisoners can have conjugal rights with a significant other and the state even provides privacy and condoms to honour this basic human need. Prisoners get free shelter, food, education, health care, entertainment, legal aid. The only "freedom" constrained is free movement. And if we put no teeth into our laws,like death penalty for murder, increasingly, citizens' free movement is constrained because of criminals who do not have any fear consequences. Discussions about capital punishment rarely have people reaching consesus. For now, Hugo, abolitionists like you outnumber pro-death penalty folks like me. But maybe as violent crime increases, my group may come to outnumber yours and capital punishment will be reinstated. Good debate though, Hugo.

1. is capital punishment a deterrent? Hugo said: Actually, recent research proves you both wrong. Also, Also, 2. death penalty is costly because you need to keep endless appeals process as a check and balance Hugo said: As it stands, death penalty cases are costly. True. But how did we become convinced that endless appeals are necessary to deliver fair justice? Is this self-interest motivated"schtick" peddled by the legal profession and perpetuated by left wing media? The defendent is judged by his peers. The sentencing is done by the judge. Is that not a check and balance right there? One appeal to the Supreme Court of the province or state is enough to double check the initial jury/judge decision, IMHO. 3. society should value all life, even lives of murders Hugo said: Not all lives are of equal value. Sorry. I don't believe that at all. The guy who just admitted to murdering 48 prostitutes recently in the USA is evil. His life is not precious. The folks who kill cops who are trying to defend us from crime are not beautiful people. Some people are truly evil. They lose their right to live in society when they take the lives of others. 4. Victims cannot speak on their own behalf anymore. That's why society employs prosecutors arguing cases on their behalf. Prosecutors are our mouthpieces for law and order, but they also speak on behalf of citizens who have been silenced due to murder.Why do we only worry about "feelings" of murderers or only about our own religious/philosophical feelings? Where's justice for the victim in this argument? What about the murder victim's "feelings?" Postscript: Here's an interesting article from USA Today that's backed with interesting stats and research about death penalty[some of which I quoted above] and it addresses the myth about "innocent" people put to death. Professors speak out in favour of the death penalty, USA Today, Jan.07/03.

In my reading of various blogs, I've read heated discussions that have come up as a result of the following 4 articles. I wonder what people here have to say? 1. MEMRI[Middle East Media Research Institute]has just posted a report on common themes of Palestinian weekly Friday sermons, which have been broadcast live on the PA television network, for the years 2000-2003. Each Khatib (preacher) is a paid employee of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Palestinian Authority Sermons 2000-2003, by S. Stalinsky, Dec.26/03 MEMRI Common themes are all very ugly , basically calling for the destruction of the USA and the killing of Jews. My question is: should Arafat get UN/EU/US funding STOPPED asap? Should Arafat be required to step down and go into exile? Suggestions? 2. It would also appear that Palestinian terrorists may be causing mischief in Iraq. More reason to shut off aid to Palestine?Ameri Taheri talks about the terrorists in Iraq, including Palestinians, Dec.30/03, Nat'l Review 3. Is the EU knowingly funding a "proxy war" against America through its aid to Arafat? Should anything be done by Bush/America?Arab Intifada Is European Proxy War On America , Dec.24/03, Arutz Sheva 4. A Canadian professor from Trent University, Michael Neumann, was forced to apologize for outrageous comments he made in Nov./02. The following article gives the background story. But it would appear that Neumann kept up his questionable/distasteful[?] rhetoric in articles featured in Counterpunch as well as his latest in LAT Dec. 30. Is Neumann crossing the line? Or is Neumann merely indulging his right of free speech? Professor Neumann is Jewish.Cdn.Jewish Congress confronts Trent U over professor's comments, Aug.13/03 Here's his latest contribution to LA Times, using a velvet glove approach to deliver the same message he did before. Anti-semitism, a minor problem, overblown, by Michael Neumann, LA imes, Dec.28/03

KK, You make a good point about Israel being a responsible civilized democracy who can be trusted with nuclear weapons and the fact that Israel makes no bones about its nuclear capability is the only reason that it still exists. Flea, a) While it's true the US backed up Israel near the end of the war, the US only BELATEDLY airlifted supplies to Israel because the other Super Power of the time, the Soviet Union, was actively supporting the Arabs from the get go and had been re-supplying Arab fighters by air and by sea as early as October 9. Nixon and Kissinger actively resisted Israel's calls for munitions help until October 12 and only after the Soviet Union rebuffed the US's calls for a ceasefire. You also neglect to mention the other "shadow friend" of Egypt and Syria who helped them in the planning stages of the war ie. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia bankrolled Egypt and Syria so they could buy every weapon their little hearts desired to destroy Israel. c) You also neglect to mention that "nine Arab states, including four non-Middle Eastern nations, actively aided the Egyptian-Syrian war effort" during the war. c) Regardless of the belated airlift of supplies by the US, the Israelis began to turn the tide of the war after they called in all their reservationists to take up arms to defend Israel. While it's true, initially the Arabs looked like they might win due to the element of their surprise attack and because they far outnumbered the Israelis, the Israelis started pushing back the Arabs BEFORE the US airlift. Here's how the odds were stacked against Israel initially: Source for all above mentioned facts+quotes: Myths and Facts: the Yom Kippur War d) Here's the reason why Israel won...because Israel fought with its wits to survive and not with gut hatred to destroy like the Arab states. And if the UN had not intervened to call a halt to Egypt's painful embaressing military loss, Israel would now be in control of the Suez and Egyptians would be mere employees. And Syrians might be speaking Hebrew in Damascus today. [don't get in a self-righteous lather about the latter...I'm just pulling your chain...but who knows? Syrian and Egyptian fighters were pretty incompetent] e) Regarding "fruits of war" that Israel won fair and square, which you seem to have a problem with Israel keeping...Victor Hanson's reply to you is more eloquent than anything I could come up with. Pay attention and you may have a learning experience delivered by a respected military history expert/author. Source: The Western Disease, Dec.30/03 Victor Davis Hanson, National Review. f) I've read someone refer to Israel as the West's "canary in the coal mine" of Islamofacist hatred for freedom and democracy. I would agree with that person's sentiment, whose name escapes me right now. So if for nothing more than base self-interest, I strongly believe that the West should be mindful and supportive of Israel's survival in the ME.

If you want to read about some humorous picks for Canadians of the Year, you've got to read this National Post list via NealeNews. The dubious, the devious, the dumbest of the year, Nat'l Post, Dec.31/03 Hope 2004 is great for all posters/moderators on this board! Well, we started 2004 on a positive note...ie. with a good laugh about the dubious, devious, & dumb that include political figures/events.

The Star and Globe and Mail...LPOC stooges. I hope Canadians don't believe this type of nakedly stupid misreporting that borders on gross negligence. What rock have The Star's staff been living under?

Speaking about the future of the UN, I wonder if any media types will dare do a follow up on the UN and the $ that came through its hands in the course of running the food for oil program in Iraq? I wonder if the truth were exposed on this issue if it would cause such an uproar in the US that President Bush would need to re-think ponying out UN dues and expect American taxpayers to pick up the tab for Iraq's re-construction. Here's a story that came up in the WSJ about the UN corruption involved in the Food for Oil program. But I've not read any good follow-ups. Strange... Enron style accounting in the UN's food for oil program in Iraq, Sept.25/02, WSJ Poor Kurds. UN money held in French bank(s)? Russia and France getting the lion's share of Iraq trade. Saddam wanting money in Euros...but note what he carries on himself as "spare change" - US money - ha, ha, ha!

Fleabag, If the "liberated" Iraq ends up no different than the old Iraq under Saddam, then Iraq is a failed nation. Then Iraqis have failed themselves and have not taken advantage of the opportunity presented to them by coalition forces. Up until this point, everyone has given Iraqis a pass on how they may have contributed to the state of affairs that allowed Saddam and his Baathist oligarchy to prosper while the majority of Iraqis suffered. I am willing to give them a pass for now, too. It was external interference from a variety of nations, it was a ruthless despot who happened to be at the right place at the right time... blah, blah... But if the Iraqis-particularly those living in the Sunni Triangle-sit on their hands and turn a blind eye to terrorists in their midst or worse, give aid to terrorists and let this opportunity to better themselves and their nation's future slip through the cracks, then I'd have to say there's a rot within and that the Iraqis themselves have been responsible for their wretched lives in the past and in the future. Do you think coalition troops are going to be babysitting Iraqis indefinitely? Do you think coalition troops are going to do all the heavy lifting/the fighting for Iraqis indefinitely? I think not. Do you think if radical Islamists take over 2/3 of Iraq, the West should continue to allow for refugee immigration from Iraq? I think not. The country Iraqis should be living from now on is the Iraq, for better or woese, of their own making. No more immigration to the West as an ace card when the going gets rough. Thusfar, the only Iraqis I see who consistently have looked to the future and made good choices and who were willing to choose sides and take risks are the Kurds. And no matter how the future of the rest of Iraq goes, the Kurds will do okay. They have likely negotiated with the Americans a nice slice of the oilfields territory for their help in tracking down Saddam and sons as well as Baathist terrorists.