Black Dog

The first time I've seen Hans Island and oil mentione i n the same sentence is here, by you, with no attribution or citation. Nothing about oil. So let me get this straight: if we don't respond aggressively (ie. militarily) to the Danes claim to this remote island, we're basically seting ourselves up to hand Fort McMurray over to the Swiss or something? Nonsense. We can protect Canada's soverignty without resorting to aggression. Well, notwithstanding the utter irrelevance of youir examples, there's also the factual errors. The U.S. and Soviet Union negotiated a lot during the Cold War. How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved without a war? How were agreemenmts like the ABM and SALT treaties developed? Why NOT negotiate?

Let me get this straight: we're suppossed to be as upset about a country's intention to veto a resolution which was never put forward (a sentiment also expressed by Russia, BTW) as we are about the actual actions of a country which has led to turmoil and blodshed? Anyway, I've already said the veto is one of the biggest barriers to an effective UN.

Because its a tiny, uninhabitated piece of rock and permafrost in the middle of nowhere that's not worth one Canadian getting so much as a hangnail over? Because negotiating is what civilized countries do?

Great strawman. France's ability to act unilateraly (indeed, any UNSC member nation's abilityto act unilateraly) is a testament toon eof the flaws of the UN's structure, one that has little to do with whether or not its membership is democractic or not. And why would I care? Look, most countries that signed up as members of the "CoW" did so onlyin exchange for aid and financial assistance. So it's hard t take claims that they are key contributers alll that seriously. Holy pointlesss analogy, Batman. I expect someone donating money to a cause like cancer research is doing so out of true selflessness, and not becaus ethey expect repayment. I oppossed the war from Day One because it was a stupid idea based on a web of falsehoods. I would have done so regradless of who was in charge (though I will admit, Bush does make it easy to hate Bush.)

Really? That's interesting because only an idiot would try to cast countries like Tongo or Angola as serious contributors to the Iraq war effort. So, you can squawk about it, but the facts indicate the invasion was a de facto unilateral effort on the part of the U.S, with a few bit players lending token support.

You don't even know what you're talking about. US oil purchases=oil purchased by the U.S ( for example, in 2001, 44.5 per cent of Iraqi oil was imported by the U.S.,compared with 8 per cent imported by France) The U.S. was the single largest purchaser of Iraqi oil under the program. Of the 31 countries claiming membership in the CoW, the British are supplying about 8,000 troops. The remaining 30 countries have a total of 16,000 troops in Iraq—an average of just over 500 troops per country. All told, the United States has more than five times as many troops as all the other 31 countries combined. That's not a coalition in any recognized sense of that word.

See above, as well as: US were among the largest buyers of Iraqi oil Oil for food probe hits U.S. firms Oh yeah: i forgot about Poland. Please. the invasion was a U.S. effort with token support.

That's a rathe rbroad statement, given the fact there are something like 1.7 billion Muslims in the world (that's about a quarter of the world's population), most of whom are living quite peacefully. It seems that Muslim violence is mainly isolated to certain regions, which indicates its a political problem, not a religious one.

So,instead of the United Nations, we'd get the United Democratic Nations, where the rich western countires set the agenda and call the shots. And, uh, what exactly would be different about that? Truth hurts.

Hmm...isn't the "only democracy in the middle East" a UN creation? Whatever. The United States has used its veto powers mor ethan any other nation on the Security Council. They also happened to be the nation that was doing the biggest business with Sadddam's regime through oil-for-food kickbacks. So really, I can acknowledge the UN's uslessness, while acknowledgging that is largely the result of an active effort by the U.S. to undermine it. The Bolton appointment is just another example of that strategy in action, as is the U.S.'s unilateral invasion of Iraq.

The Saudi Government provides millionsin aid to charitie sthat act as front groups for terrorist organizations. The House of Saud also funds the religious schools that are the nexus of the radical Wahabbist ideaology theat promotes terror. Saudi Arabia and terror Pakistan is another sponsor of terror. The ISI has historically backed extermist groups that wage terrorist vcampaigns in the disputed Kashmir region. Pakistan terror hub So you've got two key allies, who also happen to have deeper connections to the "Islamofascists" than Saddam Hussein ever did. Yet Bush is walking hand in hand (literally) with the new Saudi king and cozying up to Mushareff. I've shown eslewhere that there was no consensus on Iraq's WMD among the nations you mention. Russia, China and France never accepted the U.S./UK's intelligence on the matter.

Why not? That would probably be the best solution to an insignificant problem. Who said anything about giving it up? We can press our claim (if we have one) diplomatically, without the macho posturing.

Jeez, you guys can't make up your mind. Is the UN: (a) an ineffectual, "useless nattering organization" that doesn't do anything? or ( corrupt body that supports dictators, impedes democracy, scares children and seeks to impose a socialist, politically correct new world order? Help me out: I have such a hard time keeping right wing talking points straight. And Bolton? An embodiment of the times. F**k up up enough in George Bush's America and success is yours!

There's reports that Saddam planned for a guerrilla war (like, whatever happene dto the Republican Guard?). But by disbanding the Army, the Americans basically trapped themselves. First: even if the U.S. wanted to disarm the populace, it's doubtful they could. The practicality (or lack thereof) of such an endevour is what made it impossible, not some bunk about the Second Amendment.

It's Marc Emery, not Paul. He could get 10 years to life. That's possible life in jail for selling plant seeds. What a f'd up country. It's one thing for the Yanks to flush billons year after year in a futile "war on drugs" (they do love their unwinnable wars down there, don't they?). But to export that lunacy to our country (where the attitudes are much different: Emery wasn't doing anything illegal under Canadian law) is ridiculous. The Canadian government should fight the extradition. But they won't.

He also predicted a military alliance between India and the US against China. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> US-India-China: Giants at Play Gwynne Dyer: prophet?

RE: Heavy lift. Why do we need a heavy lifter? As BHS's link above on teh AN-124 states: Course it would also be prudent for Canada to focus on protecting Canada's territory, not serving as America's own Gurkhas. Is there a good reason for Canadians to be in Afghanistan?

I understand perfectly that they are acting in their own interests. But I don't believe are acting in the intersts of the security of their own people, otherwise they wouldn't have undertaken a strategy that greatly increases the threat to their security. And I also think that, given the way the raq situation has panned out, that all bets are off as to how this will bear out.

*Sigh* No one is disputing that democracy and such would be beneficial to the region. What is in dispute is the tactics used to accomplish that strategy (if indeed, democracy is the end goal and not simply a happy byproduct: I personally don't accept the view that the invasion of Iraq was predicated on spreading democracy). Invading their countries, killing their people and handing the radicals a new cause on a silver platter is going to do nothing to curb the spread of anti-western sentiment in a region that still harbours grudges from the 9th century.

And Christians have killed Muslims, Christians have killed Chirstians, Jews have killed Muslims, Hindus killed Muslims etc etc etc. Religious extermism is not a one-way street. Hell, I'd wager that, in the 20th Century alone, secular states have been responsible for more deaths than Islam during its entire history.

Not really. That would require you had a point to prove. Sure they have. patronage, corruption, and shady deals are an integral part of Alberta's political culture. Alberta's political environment is horribly skewed towards rural Alberta. rural Alberta has traditionally been the centre of anti-government (federal and provincial) and right-wing sentiment. Because as I said: the article is a polemic, riddled with stereotypes and caricatures and based on a reality that exists only between the ears of people like the professor. No. I call redencks rednecks. As an Albertan, I know there's a lot more diversity of thought and opinion in this province than the media and assorted crackpots would have us beleive. Tell you what: when a seperation party cracks 1 per cent support, you let me know. First, I am not a Liberal supporter. Second: most of the bars I go to here in Edmonton (the one's that don't have sawdust on the floor) those sentioments would be greeted with cheers and high fives. WHich only goes to show how wrong your sterotyping of Albertans is. The reason why seperation will never get a foothold in Alberta is because it's based on bitterness, anger and resentment. There's nothing positive about it. Unlike Quebec, Alberta doesn't have a unique culture, or a true national identity to draw on. Just spluttering rage. The Canada you long for never existed.

Curious, then that terrorist attacks have spiked since the campaign to end terrorism began. Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism. Military personnel are legitimate targets. To call attacks on a foreign occupying force "unprovoked" is to be blind to reality itself.

That's because they are two differnt things: a law is simply a descriptive generalization about nature. As Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered...In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." I'm borrowing heavily from a dog-eared copy of SciAm which dealth with this topic. All scientists rely to some degree on indirect evidence: that is, things which we cannot observe, but nonetheless can be reasonably judged to occur. The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear. You say that evolutionary science does not have any mechanisms which allow us to test what is going to happen to an object under certain conditions. That's not true. Evolution is observed on a microevolutionary basis all the time (hence gene mutations, viral resistance to antibodies, the breeding of animals to produce select traits). This is the study of changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.Macroevolution, on the other hand, draws from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related and how they changed over time. These hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). This line of thinking has always been interesting, given the poor construction and design of the human body. The thing about evolution is its basic premise has never been refuted. details have been tweaked, new ideas on how evolution occurred, but the basic idea that organisms evolve and develop over time has never been challenged. Th eevidence is solid. (BTW I'd be happy to continue this in another thread.)

Yeah: the one-party state loves democracy. Actually, based on the November 2004 election results, only 21 per cent of Albertans voted for the Conservatives. More people stayed home than voted. Funny too, that you can claim the Libs and NDs are "athetic excuses" with no business running our province, while conceding that role to an alcoholic, high-school drop put. So why have they voted for crooks for 30+ years? Better book your venue for that fast. Phone booths are a dying breed. I'd like to know how much support for seperatism is centred in rural regions (the regions shrinking the fastest in terms of population and economic clout). By the way, who is the loon that wrote the article above? I would hope that someone weilding the title Professor would be smart enough to know the difference between a scholarly appraisal and a foaming-at-the-mouth polemic (of which his article is a textbook example). What the professor (as an aside, it is amusing to see a member of the elite who has spent his life securely within the ivory tower of academia rail against "Toronto’s pontificating class and the mandarins of Ottawa") does is indulge in the favorite pasttime of seperatists and Alberta hagiographers: the creation of the Alberta monoculture. All Albertans, acording to the good prof, are gun-ho, God-fearin', gun-shootin', quad-drivin', gay-bashin', USA-lovin' red necks and proud of it. Of course, this assessment is nothing but self-serving bunk. You know its sad, because there are no doubt many legitimate critiscisms of the ferealist system and many ways the sytem can be fixed to correct the power imbalances in this country (like ditching FPTP). It's too bad so many of these critcism are drowned out by the childish whining of so many in the seperatist movement.

Separation of church and state is a two way street. Just as the state has no place in religious matters, religiou sinstitutions should be kept out of th epublic sphere (such as publicly funded schools). Putting aside the idiotic comment about evolution, the issue isn't about individuals' religious practices, but the imposition of religious beliefs on non-religious individuals or individuals of different faith. Religion is a private personal matter. Again: it's not up to the state to tell people what religious people are to believe, nor is it the state's role to facilitate the perpetuation of religious beliefs. I think of it as an extension of the principle hat your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In other words, individual religious practices are tolerable so long as they remain personal and the expression of thos ebeliefs is fine as long as it does not infringe on the beliefs of others (including those of other faiths). Agreed, but are there any examples of kids being disciplined for, say, saying a prayer to themselves or wearing religious paraphanalia? Sure, but are there not certain absolutes? Further: do religious institutions have a monopoly on morality? Given the vast amount of thought and discussion given to moral issues by secular humanists dating back to the Enlightenment, I'd say not. I gues what I'm trying to say is that morality and ethics can be taught without a religious component. Has this actually happened? Bollocks. Atheism isn't being taught in schools (most atheists come to it the same way I did: by figuring it out for themselves), while there's enough evidence establish evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. It drive me bonker sthat creationsist seem to think a theory is just some half baked notion someone cooks up between bong hits, when theorys are regarded as well-substantiated explanations incorporating evidence, facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.