Black Dog

Cluster bombs don't make distinctions. Conservatiove estimates put the number of Iraqi civilian dead at 10,000+. All terrorists to you, I suppose. Me, I'm against all terrorism, especially in it's most pervasive and destructive form: state terrorism. There are no "good guys" in this. Which ones? The Saudis who allegedly perpatrated the 9-11 attacks? They're dead. The people who supported and financed them are still around, consorting with the President of the U.S.A, while America spends billions rooting out "terrorism" in a ruined country that never attacked it and posed no threat. Yes. But a better thing would be for the west to stop propping them up in the first place. Who's freedom? Ours or the Iraqi people? I loathe the way the word and concept of freedom has been co-opted and turned into a buzz word by Bush, his puppetmasters and fawning media syncophants. "Freedom" to them means "America: right or wrong".

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Exhibit A: FoxNews. A totally biased, subsidised media firm would be fine by you if it peddled views you agreed with. Don't even try to pretend you have any real interest in objectivity or fairness, any more than the Coulter's, O'Reilly's, Limbaugh's and other right-wing syncophants (who, curiously enough, seem to do fairly well in spite of the alleged "left wing" bias in the media) do.

Click. That's interesting. I'd like to see a debate between Clark and Bush: the war hero versus the draft dodger. That said, I'm no great fan of Clark, but it adds an interesting new element to the race. Personally, I'd rather he joined with Dean. Regardless of the arrangement, though, one thing is certain: Bushco must go.

Good. keep your superstisions to yourself. It cuts both ways. Keep the two spheres as far apart as possible (does anyone want a U.S. Christian theocracy?) People should be (and are) allowed to practice their private beliefs, but the line should be drawn at pushing religion onto others through prayer in schools, etc.

If Arafat dies at the hands of Israel, I wonder if we would see Sharon go speeding down to hell after him: one war criminal for another. That said, killing Arafat will indeed stiffen the resolve of Palistinian militant groups. Which, I fear, is exactly what the Likudniks want: not peace, but a rising tide of bloodshed that will allow them to advance their agenda on the backs of innocent Israelis and Palestinians alike.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" has been a guiding principal of U.S. foreign policy for decades. Osama is a prime example, Saddam Hussein another. It's a policy which continues today, which means the U.S. will be in the business of bumping off former clients for decades to come. Obviously, you don't see the inconsistancy between those statements. Terrorists come from the ranks of those you write off as "being unsympathetic to you". Thus, the war on terror will create more terrorists, which means your war will last forever. Is that what you want? Ah yes, they're just jealous. After all, why consider complexities such as foreign control over domestic resources, creeping cultural and religious imperialsim and so forth when you can just chalk it up to geo-political penis envy. The right's tendancy to consider simplistic solutions to complex problems never ceases to amuse. Sorry, but considering how many were killed by Saddam during his tenure as the U.S.'s errand boy and how many more died when George I bailed on the Iraqi uprising in '91, your statement rings a little less than sincere. Plus, I'm sure the Iraqis America has killed in this conflict are thankful they died at the hands of Americans instead of Saddam... You just don't get it: this war will never end.

The mantras and inanities I'll leave to you (seriously: you've repeated the same stock phrases- "we will never forgive and never forget", etc- so many times that I've lost count. Time to get a new schitck.) Your Toby Keith-nationalism and complete ignorance of intelligent discourse indicates you are totally unable to justify your country's course of action on a rational level and must therefore resort to Stone Age "eye for an eye" sentiments and macho posturing. Which is easy for you, I suppose, since you're not the one hunkered down in some foreign desert. All that bluster may make you feel like a tough guy, but it certainly doesn't lend any credibility to your position. Put another way: by crouching the debate in terms of a life or death, total war struggle between the U.S.A and a nebulous "other", you provide a justification for additional strikes against the U.S. population. Not that it matters to you. Just fall in line behind that flag and don't ask questions: just swear fealty to fatherla..oops, "homeland" and send someone else's sons to die so that you can feel good about yourself.

So dismissive. Yet the evidence is there for all to see. Contracts awarded without competition to th elikes of Cheney's former company Halliburton, corporate criminal World Com, G.O.P intimates in Betchel...the list goes on. Corporate Invasion. U.S. interventionism has long been driven by domestic business interests. That may run contrary to the version of history peddled in America, but it's right there in front of you. I can only chalk your reluctance to even consider the possibility that America's motives may be anything but pure as simple cognitive dissonance. One cannot draw a direct connection between terrorist attacks of 9-11 and U.S. actions in, say, Chile, but there is a common thread between them nonetheless. That thread is U.S realpolitik in foreign matters. Panama is a good example. Like Osama bin Laden, Manuel Noreiga was a CIA creation that happened to slip his leash. Ditto Saddam Hussein (the original Ba'athist coup was CIA-backed and, as everyone knows by now, Sadddam was an American client right up till the invasion of Kuwait.) By examining these events in a historical context, we can see how U.S. foreign policy can create monsters that often turn on their masters. While OBL's list of grievences with the west may stretch back to the time of Saladin, a historical analysis demonstrates how U.S. foreign policy as practiced over the past century and a half can give rise to terrorists and so-called "rouge states". This is not, as some would wish to paint it, "blaming the victim" but simply establishing a historical context that is generally lacking in today's discourse.

There have been studies on the effects of the full moon and behavior. there's been no correlation found, so it's likely that "full moon fever" (apologies to Tom Petty) is a byproduct of supersition and urban legend. They are out there, but most governments and corporations are so enraptured with either being pro-growth (apparently for its own sake) and making a quick buck that sustainability falls by the way side. Consider the current measure of economic well-being, the GDP. GDP is a straight-up measure of economic activity that does not consider the costs. We need to change how we measure growth in order to reflect the costs to ourselves, our society and the environment. We're running a environmental defecit due to mass consumtion and waste that is putting us in an increasingly untneable position.

Snerk! Apparently teh government is the root of all evil...unless you need to use it as a club for your own brand of morality... Given the realities of today's mass media and the messages therein, comprehensive sex education is the only way to address teen sexual problems. We can't shut our eyes and hope for the best Well actually teens as young as 14 do have the "right" to have sex in the sense that it's not illegal for them to engage in consenual sexual activities. Whether or not that's too young is not an argument I want to address right now. That said, I agree the hyper-sexualized media environment is a big contributor to the sexual confusion that racks young people today. But isn't that just the free-market in action? I mean, since sex sells (and it's being used to sell to younger and younger kids), I would expect the conservative cohort to be OK with that. Caveat emptor and all that. Good for them. Kids need to be educated about their options and given real information on sex. Simply expecting them not do do it isn't going to work. If I were a parent, I'd be less concerned about the possibility of my kid being sexually active if they actually knew to use condoms. Actually, I'd klike to hear what other sex-ed ideas you might have Hugo (seriously; not trying to be confrontational or anything).

Bush Jr: -Got into two Ivy League schools soley on the basis of his family connections (his grades wouldn't have cut it) -Dodged Vietnam by joining the "champaign division" of the ANG; subsequently went AWOL for 18 months. -allowed 9-11 to happen - lied to America about Iraq's WMD capabilites - was convicted for drunk driving and public mischief and allegedly arrested for cocaine possession. And so on. No, not all Democrats are geniuses (I don't care for that party; they're just Republican-Lite), but I've heard farts that are more articulate than Georgie W.

First: there's no correlation between how much money one makes and how hard one must work. Second, I've said before that the tax system needs to be fixed so that the folks who own most of the wealth pay their share so that people who actually do work hard-small business owners, lower and middle income earners-can actually get ahead. For starters this reeks of "straw man" from miles away. I also fail to see how someone scraping $500 a month off the system constitues such agreat threat to society, especially considering that only a fraction of welfare recipients are actually "welfare bums." So? Sounds like Bush is still your kinda boy. Uh, let's see the Supreme Court justices who ruled in his favor were apointees of his dad or Reagan, the mainstream media is owned by major corporations who also happen to give very generously to the G.O.P (example: NBC is owned by G.E., which is also the largest defense contractors in the country), while non-mainstream reporters (such as Greg Palast) have done great work on exposing the fraud of the 2000 election. It's not like we're talking big backroom conspiracy stuff: just old-fashioned partisan realpolitik where power is the only thing that matters and the ends more than justify the means. No I don't. Why can't one can call for social justice and equality for women in both Afgahnistan and the U.S.A? I guaran-damn-tee that the same groups who want affirmative action and greater gender equality here were fighting for the women of Afghanistan long befor eyou and your ilk decided to make them your cause du jour. My apologies for the accident of birth that made me a white, middle-class Canadian instead of a tribesman in Sub Saharan Africa. All things being equal, I would expect that, given your position on terrorism and radical Islam, that you are currently posting from a foxhole near Baghdad. I'm certain that's not the case. Once you get out and actually put your money where your mouth is and put your ass in the line of fire, get back to me. I've said before that the Canadian Health care system has problems (problems stemming from years of ideologically-based spending cuts and downsizing). But I'd much rather have our system than the State's non-system. Sept. 25, 2002: DEA Raids California hospice. Link. One last thing. Why don't you take your assumptions, your smug superiority and your condescending attitude and shove 'em up your arse. Your clearly not as smart as you fancy yourself. If you were, you'd back up you rposition with facts instead of merely arguing by decree.

America should try dabbling in democracy, freedom of speech and religion, freedom of association, and respect for human life and dignity soemtime. Do you have any means of backing up your idealogically-driven drivel, or are making sweeping pronouncements the best you've got? 'cause I'd love to see how this country "punishes success and rewards...stupidity." I mean, considering th eintellectual capacity of your president, it seems that laziness and stupidity are means to acheving the highest post in the land (well, those plus a well-connected daddy). But I digress. What the (sorry, Greg) fuck do you know about my knowledge of the world? Ha!Groups like RAWA, Amnesty International and so forth were calling attention to the atrocities committed against women in Afghanistan long before 9-11. Oddly enough, the same right wingers who trumpeted women's rights as an excuse to undertake military action in Afghanistan were the same ones passing millions to the Taliban to keep heroin production down while turning a blind eye to huiman rights abuses. Spare me your crocodile tears for the women of that broken nation. The Taliban may be gone but women are still being treated as chattel, still subject to gang rapes, forced circumcision and more. So, America is better than a third-world totalitarian dicttorship? Wow, way to shoot for the stars, buddy. And how many U.S.Americians die "against their will" because they can't afford basic medical care or access to life-saving perscription drugs? How many die of malnutrition? Besides which, where did I mention Holland? You're losing it. Nice straw man. Who was "applauding...misery and indignity"? Hardly the same thing as questioning the wisdom of policies that lead to heavily armed DEA agent sroughing up old ladies in wheel chairs for smoking medicinal marijuana. Besides, alcohol is the cause of a myriad of social ills, yet is perfectly legal.... Distortions and straw men seem to be your stock in trade.

Gee, why didn't someone think of that before? I mean, teenagers always listen when others, especially authority figures, tell them what to do.

Oh brother. It's time the United States, hiding behind archaic notions of nationalism and myths of cultural superiority, took off it's blinders and earplugs and joined the rest of the world. The war on terror will be long, expensive, difficult and, ultimately, unwinnable. Time to stop the bull-in-a-china-shop unilateralism and get engaged. Time to stop with the fatuous nonsense of U.S. superiority- a country with a bloated, over-subsidized military, huge gaps in standards of living, draconian and repressive drug policies and a corrupt, inefficient health care system that leaves millions without access to basic medical care has little to chirp about. I can do this all day.

Nooo. I'm saying the 800 lb gorilla can only lie down in so many places before it can expect to be challenged. Thus has it ever been with Empires, yet you seem to think America is an innocent dragged into a war with an entire race of people. Nothing exists in a vaccum. Doe sthat excuse or justify terrorist actions? No, but context is important. As for your final comment, I challenge you to find any reference to the Jewish people in anything I've written. Your thinly veiled accusations of anti-Semetism are a sure sign that you're slipping. :angry: Oh, and I've never read marx. I'm a social democrat.

Please. American news outlets did their damndest to hide the "reality of war" from viewers. The war, like its predecessor, was cast as a video game (I remember watching with disgust as, on the first day of ground operations, CNN kept showing computer animated graphics of U.S. military hardware. They reminded me of trading cards. "I'll trade yopu a Bradley fighting vehicle for a MOAB.") Where were the mangled, bloody bodies, the charred remains of Iraqi conscripts? The last thing the U.S. wants is people to see the true face of war. If they did, no one would want to fight. (Is it any wonder though, since the men who forced this war never served their country?)

What part about aid and money and goods to dictators, the supression of democracy and self-rule and support for terrorists don't you get? It would be far easier to take in the arguments for the U.S. actions in the War on Terror if its proponents would at the least acknowledge that Amaerica is by no means the benevolant force it's made out to be. Does this mean America is the greatest evil the world has ever known? No. History makes no judgements and the American Empire will be seen in a few hundred years as just another one of man's experiments (unless folks like CraigRead get their way and pull us all down to hell). It is not special, it is not unique, it is not a pinnacle of civilization. This is a core element of the current situation: in the eyes of many of its people, America can truly do no wrong (and if it does, well, it just makes "mistakes"). This form of blind nationalism is contrary to the very ideals that are supposed to make America the bastion of freedom it claims to be. You see it every day when people are called to "support the president" in a fascistic elevation of the nation's leadership to heroic status. As President Teddy Roosevelt said: The question is: do critics of the U.S.'s policies "hate America"? No. But we believe that the path America is heading down will not lead to a better world. We believe that America should lead by example, not brute force and coercion. I have higher expectations for America than I do for Osama bin Laden or any other power-mad thug. It's time the U.S.A started living up to it's own promise, rather than sinking down into the mud with its enemies.

Truthfully, I have my own doubts about bin Laden's status. However, I also believe the Bush admin recognizes how important it is to keep Osama's name out there for their own political purposes. bin Laden is America's own Emmanuel Goldstein. Oh, and the small-dick bin Laden thing is an urban legend. All hail Snopes!

A problem excrabated by the high-interest, low inflation policies of the last two decades, policies instituted by the Mulroney Tories and the boys on Bay Street with little regard to their long term effects on the economy. That's a plain old oversimplification. Look at the example of the U.S.A. Federal taxes there have remained relatiovely unchanged for decades (18.4% of GDP in the '50s to 20.5% in the early '90s), yet productivity has declined ever since. The problem lies not with taxes, but with the distribution of taxation. The trend has been to cut taxes for the wealthy and for corporations and shift the tax burden onto mid and low income folks. This policy is simply wrongheaded. Again, look at the U.S.A, which enjoyed its highset period of productivity when the top marginal tax rate was 91.2%. Basically, the problem isn't high taxes, it's that the wrong people are carrying too much of the tax burden. The overblown "brain drain" is offset by the influx of highly skilled immigrants into the country. There are four times as many university graduates entering Canada from the rest of the world as there are university degree holders of all levels leaving Canada for the United States, simply due to the larger number of immigrants Canada has. Hardly a uniquely Canadian trait, though. The health care system's massive problems stem from chronic underfunding. Period. I don't know what you mean by "broken". Care to elaborate? Which makes it all the more important for the country to attract and retain skilled immigrants, as well as to bolster education to ensure a high level of productivity. Wrong. "There are fewer teenage pregnancies and a lower rate of teen pregnancies now than in 1974. The teenage pregnancy rate in Canada was at its highest in 1974 (54 per 1,000) then declined until reaching its lowest point in 1987 (41.1). The rate then rose gradually until it hit 48.1 in 1992 and has been fluctuating since then. The rate in 1995 was 47 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19."- (Statistics Canada and Canadian Council on Social Development) The divorce rate has actually declined, due to lower marriage rates, an increase in the number of legal separations and the increasing prevalence of common-law unions. Yet you still don't want people who actually want to get married marry. Weird. No doubt that's a problem, which is why we need lower interest rates, higher taxes for high income earners, more tax breaks for small-medium businesses and to rejig NAFTA. Reinvestment in public education should be a top priority of government. That means curbing tuition rates at the post-secondary level and increasing funding to public schools. Worked for Ireland. Canada's crime rate has declined steadily over the past 10 years. Vilonet crime is measured differntly in the U.S., so the comparason is meaningless. Really, this list of Canada's woes is mostly baseless proclamations of half-truths and distortions. You should at leats back up your own statements.

Wrong analogy. FastNed's solution would have the doctor trying to remove a bullet from a patient who is uncuffed and swinging a machette put a bullet between the patient's eyes. You miss the point, as usual. You fail to see nothing wrong with compromising every principle that the U.S. was allegedly founded upon in your lust for blood, instead repeating the same cliches ad nauseum. I also find it rather amusing that you cite America's revolutionary past, steadfastly ignoring the fact that the men who fought for America's independence were considered terrorists in their age. The War on Terrorism is a sham and consequently doomed to fail. Terrorism is not an enemy you can target with guns and bombs. Terrorism wil exist as long as there are men who hunger for power or who seek to change their world. Fighting terrorism through brute military force is like punching smoke: futile. All that will be accomplished wil be further hardening of hearts against America as more innocent lives (like the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians) are lost to bolster Bush's reelection hopes. America is the globe's 800 lb gorilla and as such, will ever be a target. The task is to minimize those threats through the time-honoured and effective methods of counter-terrorism: intelligence-gathering, cooperation, law-enforcement and criminal justice. But then, such methods ultimately do little to enhance Halliburton and Lockheed Martin's bottom line, so it's easy to see why they are out of favour with the plutocrats in Washington.

Uh...how do you know?

Just to clarify: to win the war on terror and protect the principles of freedom, democracy etc. etc. etc. it may become necessary to trample said principles in favor of a campaign of mass destruction and death? In other words: you would become that which you hate, destroy what you are in a single-minded quest for vengance? Wow. That's messed up. I sure hope that America's leaders aren't as crazy as you (but I have my doubts).

So you acknowledge that Hussein cynically invoked the name of Islam merely to suit his own needs, then. Hardly a searing indictment of the religion in and of itself. Can't see what this has to do with the topic at hand, but it's always nice when ignorami spout self-incriminating idiocy such as this.

The First Crusade occurred during the 9th century, a thousand or so years before the Ottoman Empire was born. The last Crusade (the seventh) was undertaken by Louis IX of France in 1244. Evolution is a fact. There is some debate over the mechanisms of evolution, but the fundamental truth of evolution is undeniable.