Black Dog

William of Orange.

Because the World Court has concluded it doesn't have juridstiction since the former Yugoslavia was not an official member of the United Nations when it initiated the case in April 1999 and as a result was also not a party to the ICJ's statute. Simply because war crimes are not prosecuted doesn't mean they did not occur. I've made my opinion clear that any party that undertakes actions knowing they will result in civilian deaths is as morally responsible for those deaths as someone who targets them intentionally. As was the ethnic cleansing of Serbians by Kosovar forces (backed by NATO). The worst atrocities actually occurred afte rand in retaliation to NATO bombing. Given that there's no evidence any Japanese Canadians were enemy agents, it was the wrong execution of a wrong idea. I don't really see what point you're trying to make. All aliong, you've been claiming soldiers do what they do because of belief in the rightness of their cause. Yet, when presented with an example where that same belief led to crimes against humanity, you back away from your original argument by saying the Nazis involved couldn't have believed in killing innocent people. Well, if they didn't believe in the cause, why would they take part in the atrocities? They certainly weren't under threat of death since your own sources indicate that "In all of the SS records, reviewed between 1946 and 1950, there was not one case discovered where an SS member was killed for refusing to carry out an illegal order associated with the Holocaust."

No. The threat the Bomarc was designed to mitigate was that of Soviet long range bombers, which by the time the Bomarc entered service, had been eclipsed by the threat of ICBM's, rendering the Bomarc useless. A lofty goal indeed. U.S. military spending is around three percent of GDP. But that number belies the impact military spending has on the economy. A large sector of the U.S economy hinges on the war machine, an artificial economy, if you will, an entire range of enterprise soley supported by the state. As well, the economic growth of the U.S. in the 1990s shrunk the percentage even as actual amounts increased. Keep in mind too that spending today roughly matches that (percentage wise) of spending during the Cold War when, arguably, the US faced a large conventional threat. Now, they have have rising deficits, rising spending and shrinking revenues, an aging population and a costly foreign engagement. You do the math. Now the big threat is a whoopise? Given that in almost 50 years, no nuclear missile has been launched by accident, I'd put that threat even lower then that of a "rogue state" committing suicide by attacking the U.S. Simply put: the missile threat is small and shrinking and in no way justifies mammoth spending on a project of questionable utility and performance.

How can one gain an understanding (which is okay in your book) without examining the motivations? You're contradicting yourself. That would stand up if anyone (even the perpetrators) were actually blaming the victims in this case. The individuals who were killed and maimed were the victims, not their government. Therefore, tracing responsibility to the actions of the government is not blaming the victim. I can't possibly make this any clearer for you. I dunno, having not "lost" a debate to you. I don't think its hard to grasp. remember Beslan? In the words of one of the Chechyan militants involved: "You killed our children, we've come to kill yours." Individual motivations are tricky. Despite adopting the trappings of their new homeland, many immigrant communities still indentify with their societies of origin. The insular nature of thses communities (fueled in part by unacceptance and rascism in their new lands), plus the possibilities of global communication mean that the grievances of the old world find root in the new. Robert Pape, an associate professor of political science at the University of Chicago, conducted a study of the 315 known suicide terrorist attacks that occurred in the world between 1980 and 2003, attacks carried out by Muslims, Tamils, Sikhs, and Kurds. Pape concluded that "what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective." Where are these people?

By engaging in actions that will inevitably lead to more terrorism (like, say, invading their countries)?

Oh you mean when they propped up Suharto as he massacred tens of thousands in East Timor? Oh, you mean the tsunami aid, $350 million of which ha sbeen pledged and $78 million spent. (To compare, Bush's inaguration cost $45 million and the Iraq war costs about $177 million per day) What of the wars they started? By launching a bombing campaign that precipitated some of the worst atrocities of the conflict? yeesh. The point here is there are always examples where intervention has negative consequenses. Most of the major issues today (such as terrorism) are direct results of those interventions. Aericans and their apologists need to be reminded of George Washington's sage advice: "the Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."

Yeah a movement with no set membership, leadership or central authority. In other words "Al Qaeda" is an idealogical construct, not a true organization. By your logic, then, anyone who try to understand why terrorism happens is an apologist. You're still wrong as hell. An apologist is a person who argues in defense or justification of something. I have always been clear in condemning acts of terror while seeking to explain them. If you're going to argue from analogy, it usually helps to use a situation that's even remotely analagous. Yours is straight up victim blaming. No one has blamed the victims of London or NYC or any other terrorist act as being responsible for their own fate, but rather looked at how the policies of national governments influence ideaologie sthat use terrorism as a weapon. Clearly, this basic concept is beyond your ken, so I don't see the point in discussing it any further.

Al Qaeda can be a "boogeyman" as I have said in the past, and still be a threat. Anyway, there's no indication the real Al Qaeda actually carried out the attacks in London. That's how one could interpret that...if one was a moron with no understanding of the difference between understanding the flow of cause and effect and making a judgment on the victims. If you walk in front of a bus, saying "he didn't look both ways before he crossed and then got hit" is a far cry from saying "that moron had it coming". It's not a hard concept to grasp. Blah blah blah blah. Get back to me when you can back up any of your ridiculous, half-baked claims that I (1) am an "apologist" for "radical Islam" and (2) have "stigmatized" the victims.. As for equivocating about the definition of terror, I was pretty clear: terrorism is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. Nothing in that definition precludes the use of terrorist tactics by state or state agents. You would limit the definition of terror to, as I said before, what "they " do to "us" and never the inverse: you are the very picture of moral relativism.

NATO's bombing blunders NATO war crimes DU and Kosovo Turning a blind eye to war crimes Canadian personnel took part in the terrorist bombings of Dresden and other civilian population centres. Canadian personnel are known to have participated in war crimes, including executions of P.O.W's. Canada as a nation committed one big war crime against its own by interning aCanadians of Japanese descent and seizing their property. So don't try to tell us we're innocent and pure. Actually the Waffen SS were all combat units. Concentration camp guards etc. would not have come from Waffen SS ranks (note that the Waffen SS has its own track record of atrocity). Ad for your statement doubting the idealogical commitment of individuals capable of war crimes: the SS membershi[p was selected in part for their commitment to and unwavering belief in Hitler and the Nazi cause.

Sooner or later, yes. The decision to invade and occupy was contrary to world opinion. I don't think we should have to help the U.S. clean up the mess they made. The last thing needed in that region is more foreign meddling. I disagree. The U.S. does what it does to serve its own interests. If people are helped or harmed, well, that's secondary. So to paint them as some sort of global martyr is just naive and wrong.

I think it does. C-38 amendment

So many misconceptions to clear up. Personally: I'm not advocating increasing security any more than necessary. I doubt Canada is high up on the list of targets, but it doesn't hurt to have a plan. That's certainly not the same thing as saying "we need to build up a big military so that if we get attacked we can beat up on some brown folks!" Is Cananda a target: sure. Does our close relationship with the US (including our involvement in Afghanistan) make us more likely targets? Certainly. As for people thinking the US and Londoners "deserved" the attacks, that's just pure, unadulterated horseshit. There's a world of difference between understanding the reasoning or motivations behind the attacks and endorsing them. It's too bad that clear distinction is so tough for some to grasp.

Alberta backs down on same-sex marriage

A distinction needs to be made on spending for security (that's bordersecurity, screening for transportation etc etc.) and military spending. The former is valuable and necessary for preventing terrorism. The latter has little or no appreciable affect. If anything, Canada's military commitments make us more of a target for terrorism than Iceland or Luxembourg. To sum up, security good, military spending not so much.

It's well known that Saudi Arabia is the nexus of radical, antiwestern Islamic thought. it's also well known that the Saud family as long tacitly supported such movements. Al Qaeda is an offshoot of those movements. So, while the House of Saud may not have any direct link with AQ (inasmuch as regimes such as Saudi Arabia's are enemies of Islam according to AQ), they have incubated terrorism and radicalism by creating an environment in which it can prosper. The U.S lends support, training, shelter and arms to many terrorist groups, predominately Latin American, including Cuban exile groups and Latin American paramilitaries. That's not a fantastic charge, but public record. Again: Iraq's nuclear program was dormant ( a fact which was known to the intelligence community), while Iran’s and North Korea's were and are in full swing. If preventing so called "rogue states" from acquiring WMD was the purpose of the invasion, why start with the country that poses the least threat? You'll find no reference to heroes in my posts on this subject. France, Russia et al were complicit in Saddam's regime, no doubt about it. The whole debacle was an example of cynical power politics at the expense of the people of an impoverished nation victimized by their own leadership and the wealthy west. As for "fixing the problem", the U.S. policy of intervention in the region since World War 2 has led to many of the problems they are trying to fix today. Further intervention isn't the answer, but folly. What business do American elected officials have determining the fate of people in the Middle East? Those people do not exist for our convenience or for our energy security. Nor is it America's place to ensure justice in the region. Government in the United States was to be strictly limited by the Constitution, its purpose was to guard the peace and security of the American people at home, not to extend American power hither and yon for grandiose schemes. The United States would be better to act as a moral leader, serve by example, rather than engaging in the same pattern of behaviour that has produced naught but failure after failure.

Becasue the two systems are not analagous. The Arrow was state of the art, miles ahead of its competition. It was replaced by an expensive system of questionable performance designed to defend agaisnt a non-existent threat. Sound familiar? As I've pointed out in other threads on the subject, the BMD system fails even teh most basic cost-benefit analysis.The US government has spent an estimated $130 billion on variousversions of BMD since Ronald Reagan first dreamed of a perfect shield against Soviet missiles twenty years ago, and it's only now that they are starting to put the system to the test (which it has failed again and again, even under the most controlled circumstances). Given the microscopic threat of an ICBM attack, the costs of the program to date and its failure to perform, at what point do you say enough and pull the plug on what is clearly a technological and practical dead end? As an aside, many, right-wingers in particular, like to cite overspending on the military as a key factor in the fall of the Soviet Union. According to Janes, in 2005 the U.S.A. will spend more on its military than the rest of the world combined. Methinks the U.S.A would be wise not to ignore the lessons of history.

Let me ask you this: if I sell someone a gun, knowing full well they intend to commit a crime with it, does that make me partially responsible for the crime? And if not, why not? Not really. I've already pointed out that the UN is just a fig leaf for the powerful: nowhere was that more evident than in the kabuki theatre that passed for debate on Iraq. The USA was clear it inteded to invade and occupy Iraq for its own reasons regardless of the UN. But let's look at Iraq: a weak, third world country with virtually no military; under a sanctions regime that devastated the people (even as western companies and nations-including the US-continued to deal with the regime under the table); a country that posed no threat to its neighbours (who were making overtures to normalize relations with Iraq). Yet somwhow we're to believe the de facto unilateral invasion and occupation of this piss pot countryis legitimate? The lack of substantive change in US policy has more to do with the homogony of politics in the US. I also can't help noticing the abscence of a key group from your discussion of whether to invade Iraq was legitimate: Iraqis.

Give me a break. -"supporting terrorism": if supporting terrorism wa steh issue, why not invade Saudi Arabia (you know: the country that actualy spawne dthose responsible for 9-11?)? "Harbouring terrorists": the Unitede States harbours terrorists too. "Attempting to aquire WMD": Pre-war evidence of Iraq's WMD situation was, at best, shaky. After the overthrow, it became clear that there were no WMD and no active WMD development programs. "Attacking Peaceful Neighbouring states": like who? Iran? Kuwait? Both of those were conducted with either the explicit suport of the U.S. (as in Iran) or what Saddam husayn belived was the U.S.'s approval (as in Kuwait). Now, to be sure Saddam Husayn's regime was brutal. And the world knew its brutality even back when the U.S.A was selling him the means to do his dirty work. No the reason for invading and occupying Iraq is, as you clumisly state, the need for a large American military force to secure the regional oil supply. Unfortunately for the Americans, they've overreached. The problem of terrorism is getting worse as a result of their invasion. Nations like Iran and North Korea are building up nuclear deterrents. Iraq remains an unstable mess.

I'll remember that Which proves the patented ridiculousness of basing policy today on the works of mortal men thousands of years ago: paul was a man. Wrong Apostle: that was Peter. Obviously not all Chrsitian Churches agree.

Jesus said also: In other words, yes Christ uphelp the Old Testament teachings of Moses, including prohibitions on sexual behaviours, diet etc. So, I say again: why are Christians so selective? If one injunction applies, then all do. If any do not, all do not.

Doesn't that interpretation undermine the notion that God disapproved of homosexual behaviour? If your statement is correct on preiests are disallowed from engaging in homosexual behaviour (and do I really need to say any more about this?) Well, what about his stance on cotton/poly blends or prawns? Don't you think its a wee bit hypocritical to pick and choose which of god's statuates to follow? What a crock. By this logic, the only way gay people are acceptable is if they do not express their identity (in other words: remain celibate). The sinner is the sin.

Why not? Bad analogy alert. Perhaps your analogy would work if, in addition to giving people on welfare assistance, the government of Ontario gave them guns. Individuals are responsible for their own actions, though social circumstances amy be a factor in influencing their choices. When it comes to nations and regimes, though, western interests habitually facilitate crimes when it suits their interests to do so. It's the way of the world, I suppose, but obviously not a workable one. As for cutting of communication, I don't think that's possible. W2hat we need is a policy of constructive engagement. But you haven't explained why. Spain's an interesting case. the pro-war regime had a solid lead in the polls and was headed to victory until the Madrid bombings brought the war home. Again, anti-war sentiment wasn't enough to carry the day. Well, in Britain, as the USA, the choice was between two pro-war parties. In other words people didn't have an avenue to express their anti-war sentiment (I'm aware there are other parties, but they dion't realy count for reasons I shan't get into here). All these cases illustrate the great flaws in western representive democracies: the people cannot pick and choose which policies to support: they are stuck. But it also raises the point that legitimacy goes beyond simple public approcval. If I may channel Hugo for a second, if 99 people out of 100 vote to murder the 1, does that majority approval make that course of action legitimate? Nations don't act morally. They act to serve their interests. those actions have moral implications, but moral consideratiosn are seldom, if ever, the key driver of policy. As for alternatives, I don't know. I know the status quo is unsustainable. And I'm sure we'll have to come up with alternatives once we come to the end of the road we're on now.

Filmmaker/author Jon Ronson spent some time with Omar Bakri Mohammed during the writing of his book THEM. Ronson's portrait of Mohammad was that of a somewhat befuddled buffoon who could barely draw a crowd in Hyde Park's Speaker's Corner. It's a book that's worth looking at.

I never said it was a totally acheviable goal. But there's no denying its in the world's best interests to pursue disamrmament policies and to reduce the damage of proliferation. I don't expect any of the nuclear powers to cede their control, but its a goal that makes a lot more sense than wasting money on a BMD system, dontcha think? And who empowers so many tyrants? Who allows and enables them to make a mockery of human rights? Who deals with them, props them up, sells them guns? How so? I assume you believe democracies have the implicit approval of their citizens. But what of actions undertaken without that approval (I'm thinking of countries like the UK and Spain where participation in the Iraq war was oppossed by large majorities)? Also you fail to realize that citizens can give their approval (and thus legitimacy) to actions that under any other circumstances, would be considered unjust or illegitimate (such as the U.S.' invasion of Iraq).

The question is: why would anyone be crazy enough to attack the United States, even if they could, especially using ICBM's when, as soemone else noted, it would be a lot easier to hit the U.S. through unconventional means, such as proxy terror groups. I think its silly to assume that this BMD, even if they ever get the damn thing to work, will be the end of ICBMs. Technology marches on and someone is bound to come up with a way to neutralize it. A better priority to focus on would be global nuclear disarmament. You missed my point, which is that the current UN, despite the common canard, does not "legitimize the world's worst regimes"; rather it is an institution run by powerful nations (mainly democracies) that determine what it can and cannot do. Therefore, if the United Nations in its current incranation has failed, that failure is the responsibility of the same nations you are expecting to reform it. Basically, you are expecting the powerful to freely surrender the power they have and destroy the body that gives their actions a veneer of legitimacy.