Black Dog

Is that the yellowcake he bought from Niger? Anyway, the IAEA WAS in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and from November 2002 to March 2003. These and other, subsequent investigations found no evidence of any active Iraqi nuclear, chemical or bioweapons programs. So I'm curious as to where you're getting your information.

Institute for Historical Review (IHR): Outlet for Denial Propaganda (Note how the IHR web site is a copy of the ADL's) Embattled bigots Why "revisionism" isn't. Response to the Institute for Historical Review and Zundel

Mountie tragedy 20 plants does not a grow-op make. To put that in perspective, the largest indoor grow-op bust (at the old Molson Brewery in Barrie, Ont.) netted 30,000 pot plants. Well, it helps if the incident in question is actually linked to the larger issue. However, this incident had little to do with drugs (the mounties were looking for stolen goods). How about stiffer penalties for gun owners? Oh and before anyone laments the uselessness of the gun registry, bear in mind that Alberta has refused to enforce its provisions.

If his possession of WMD is such common knowledge why have they found no evidence of any programs? The U.S's own Iraq Survey group reported that Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and did not have any programs to produce them? Are they lying?

Republican lies are like cockroaches: they thrive in the dark amidst the filth and are very hard to kill. Nevermind that so many of the alleged connections between AQ and Iraq have been debunked. They are fundamentally no different from the type of conspiracy theorys we see that blame the U.S. diectly for 9-11, or claim that the Holocaust never happened. They involve seizing on scraps of questionable evidence and moulding them into a story that sounds plausible, but don't hold up under scruitiny. My favorite one of thse nugets is the Salman Pak story. The fundamental flaw of this fish story is that, if the Bush administration tryluy had such "smoking gun" evidence linking Iraq to 9-11, they would be pushing that line hard. Instead, we get statements from the government and from U.S. intelligence sources categorically denying an Iraqi connection to 9-11.

That's why the half -assed measure of decriminalization is inadequate. Marijuana should be fully legalized and regulated, thus removing organized crime from the equation.

Wow. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Staff Statement #15 Loser.

You have to either be an idiot or be totally obtuse. Saddam didn't have WMD. Nor did he have ties to Al Qaeda. His military was decrepit. He was weak, he was contained, ergo, he was no threat.

I'd still like to know why nuclear deterrence and the MAD doctrine, which have worked to prevent nuclear war for more than 60 years, have suddeny become obsolete. Why would third world countries like Iran or North Korea present a greater possibility of launching a nuclear attack than Chiona or the former Soviet Union? Dyer: The secret behind missile defense is that it's not about defense

But can you imagine the toursim boom? Hell we could convert Alberta's livestock operations into weed farms!

You mean like this? Oh wait: that's the NY Post, a Murdoch-owned, Bush friendly rag. My bad. Well, when the polls show widespread antipathy towards the U.S., isn't that question already answered? I didn't see that , I can't comment. But yeah, that smacks of sterotyping, but then, perhaps ian knows something we don't? Please. Bush's "down home" expressions ("we're gonna smoke 'em outta their holes") are a deliberately crafted part of his public personae. Did you hear him call Chirac "a good cowboy." the other day? C'mon. I've seen David Frum on the CBC more than I ever wanted to. I've seen people from the Fraser Institute, the Taxpayer's federation, the Conservative Party and more. Give me a break: that's standard questioning on any network. Actually, the CBC interviewed somebody who said Israel was involved. Most of the allegations of bias concern MacDonald's "Viewpoints" articles: in other words, opinion pieces. Well your sources are unimpeachable and surely don't have an agenda of their own... From Life Site: From the Canada FreePress (good thing it's free, 'cause I ain't buying it) But then I can't expect high standards from someone who'd craft this sentence: huh?

But pot and alcohol are very different. They affect people differntly (when was the last time you heard of a "pot-fuelled brawl", for example?) Pot has been around for a long time too: it was described in a Chinese medical compendium traditionally considered to date from 2737 BC. It wasn't until the 1930s that "reefer madness" took hold and pot use was prohibited. Not that stopped it, obviously. In canada, cannabis use has doubled in the last 13 years. So we're not dealing with an unknown quantity. Frankly, I think anyone who wants to try pot can do so relatively easily today. I doubt a significant number of people will start sparking up should it become legal, simply because it is legal. I don't think we can read too much into this case. By most accounts, this guy was a total nutter. I fear the results would have been the same if this was a traffic violation or noise complaint. But if we are to think about organized crime, not many organized criminals would risk a confrontation with police. Better to cut your losses and go free to grow another crop than to end up jeapordizing your whole operation.

Nosireee, I wouldn't. America is not popular in Pakistan. The peoplethere don't much like their government, which is propped up by the U.S. Some are, some aren't. It's still a tilted playing field. Even the "well-armed" insurgents are hopelessly out gunned. Naturally that will spawn some unorthodox practices. Again: you are generalizing about 1.5 billion people, the vast majority of whom are no different than you or I. On eman's account. Which reason would that be? The non-existent WMD? The non-existent ties to Al Qaeda? Well, in Saddam's case, they helped him seize power. Later, the US and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks. Following Gulf War 1 (and the aforementioned Shite revolt, which he was allowed to crush under the West's nose), Saddam used a web of front companies and shadowy deals with foreign governments, corporations, and officials to amass $11 billion in illicit revenue in the decade before the US-led invasion. Through secret government-to-government trade agreements, Saddam Hussein's government earned more than $7.5 billion while also recieving $2 billion in kickbacks from foreign companies (including the Dick Cheney-helmed Halliburton, which was one of several American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000 by skirting U.S. laws and selling Iraq spare parts so it could repair its oil fields and pump more oil) that received oil or that supplied consumer goods. They were in Iraq. They controlle dteh airspace, yet allowwed Saddam to deploy helicopters which used chemical weapons against the rebellious areas. A history of complicity. Saddam wasn't always hostile, was he? Think about it this way: you might forget the innocents who (accidently or otherwise) pay with their lives. But how does that look to the people you're supposed to be liberating? They won't forget, and they won't forgive.

Well, alcohol usage spiked after prohibition. If something is legal, it is therefore easier to obtain so more people will use it. But that's a case for regulation, not outright prohibition. In any case, are current drug laws making it difficult to get drugs? Not really. Kids are still getting pot (probably with greater ease than they do alchol, thugh that's just speculation on my part). I wonder if legalization would also lead to the demysification. Kids are drawn to drugs, alcohol etc partly because of the "forbidden fruit" aspect. I'd liek to see a comparison between rates of alchol us ebetween North AMerican kids and those in Europe, which generally has more relaxed booze laws. But again it comes down to asking: are the costs of legalizing pot greater than the costs of maintaining tae status quo? I doubt it. The U.S. has mor epeople in prison for drug crime than the European Union has for all offenses. That, to me, says the laws aren't working.

Prohibition lead to a dramatic increrase in crime. the crime rate dropped following prohibition's end. Prohibition was a failure. Any of this sound familiar? But what heppened next? As for the idea that decriminalizing or legalizing weed is "giving into crime", well, there's plenty wrong with hat. For one thing, soemthing should only be a crime if it has a negative impact on society that necessitates the intervention of the state. Given that pot use, like smoking or alcohol, is essentially a private matter, why is it illegal in the first place? As I pointed out, all the negatives associated with the drug trade are consequnces of the drug laws and not the drugs themselves. So why stick with a set of laws that are clearly causing more problems than they are solving? It's not "giving in" to recognize that a bad idea has run its course. Well if you legalize drugs and prostitution (and, one assumes, regulate then the same way tobacco and alcohol are regulated) then you put an end to the violence associated with attempts to control these previously illicit markets. This brings us back to the question of why certain activities are illegal. Murder, rape, vanadlism and other property crimes are crimes because they infinge on the rights of others. But if I smoke a joint, who's rights are being infringed upon? Similarily, if someone wants to do a bump of cocaine with a hooker (who thanks to the newly regulated prostitution industry, is there under his or her own free will), who's being harmed? The point is, bad asses will be bad asses no matter what. But sweeping drug laws have meant a lot of people who've not done anyone any harm are feeling the force of the law. To me, that's the mark of a bad law. Why should we have to spend any more lives or money fuighting a futile war against something that, ultimately, poses no threat to society? Wouldn't the resources that we're expending in the fight against drugs (a fight we've been losing since Day One) be better directed to safeguarding society from the genuinely "bad people" IMR is talking about?

Frankly the whole regin is a snakepit of thugs. Incidentally, many of those states you named are also buddy-buddy with the U.S. in the "war on terror ", which kinda supports what I'm saying about democracy and freedom. There's a reason for this: why would anyone blow themselves up when they can acall in a airstrike or use long-range weapons to accomplish the same task. We're not talking about some inborn or learned predilication for suicide bombing but a disparity in resources. I'm sure Hmas or the Iraqi resistance would be happier to fight on even terms with modern weapons than...but it's called asymetrical warfare for a reason. Frankly, given their failure to sign on to the ICC, the abuses at Gunatanamo Bay, Abu Ghirab and elsewehere, as wella s accounts of atrocities in Iraq, I'm not putting much faith in America's adherence to the Geneva conventions these days. Sure, there are those who get caught (incidentally, the U.S. marirne who popped the Iraqi in the mosque was not charged). What I'm saying is that there are plenty that don't. Well let me ask you this: who are the invaders? Okay, Saddam was a beast, but absolutely no threat to anyone but his own people. He was contained. If anything, the west helped him (indirectly) stay in power as long as he did. They had the chance to take Saddam out in '91 when the Shiites rebelled at Bush 1's request. The west let Saddam massacre the rebel forces because they valued "stability" more than the lives of Iraqis. The point I'm making is that these bad guys don't just pop up out of nowhere. More often than not, they are pawns in the geopolitical game sthe big powers play. If we want to keep these guys from committing crimes, we need to stop putting them in charge. I'd like to believe that the U.S. and others want to change tthe way they do business, but history doesn't give me much reason for optimism. I blam teh politicians first, make no mistake, especially the one's, like Bush and Cheney, who could have served their countries, but shirked their duties. But ultimately, the reponsability lies with whoever pulls the trigger.

Lloyd Axworthy fires missile salvo

I expect that your big-time drug operators already have their fingers in other pies, be it meth/coke, prostitution, racketering etc etc. That's why it's called "organized" crime. However, legalizing weed would knock out one particularily lucrative pillar of the criminal element. It's not the drug that's dangerous, but the circumstances under which it is is grown, bought and sold that create the danger to society. Those circumstances are product of the laws against growing, buying and selling the drug, not the drug itself. Agreed.

CNN is not a digital cable channel. Boy, you can't even come up with an original joke. One of eh reasopns conservatives love Fox news is that it gives them a forum for this kind of self-congrulatory back-slapping (I'll spare you the cruder, yet more accurate, analogy). U.S. "all wrong" on WMD: report No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says FoxBoy is one for three. Unlike you, I don't associate popularity with quality. But then, I bet you dig Amerian Idol too. One Fifth Estate program is hardly apeshit (you must be getting confused, what will all the simian feces being flung around by the likes of Nannity and O'Reilly). Yes means no for Al Jazeera Goodnight, folks!

If the brown shirt fits....

You didn't. I'm agreeing with you (on that point).

What "other Middle Eastern countries" are you talking about. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are among the worst of the lot, along with Syria and Iran. Yet the former pair are "good guys". Again, I don't see how someone moivated to do violence by their faith (be it Islam, Christianity or Judaism) is any different from someone motivated by patirotism or lucre. As for revenge, well, I read a lot of quotes from soldiers in Iraq saying they were there to get payback for 9-11 (which Iraq was not inolved with). I'm well aware of the geneva convention and its provisions. I'm also well aware that those provisions are regularily flouted by various armed forces with out any consequenses. Ah yes...ooops, we did it again. So sorry. To me there's no difference between "accidental" civilian deaths and intentionally targetting civilians. U.S. troops, by virtue of simply being there are putting civilian lives at risk and are therefore culpable. In any case, wht defines an accident? For instance there's plenty of evidence that troops have adopted a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach as a result of the insurgencies tatics. But is killing a civilian that you thought was an insurgent to be considered an accident? I'm not aware of any war crime scases. There's probably the odd disciplinary action (such as in the case of the U.S. soldier who killed an Iraqi guardsmen after the two had sex), but war crimes? Haven't heard a peep. Anyway, we should propbably take this discussion to another thread, as this one's about BMD...

But clearly Bush's proposal is not among those superior alternatives. I am well aware of the liberatarian antipathy towards government programs, but its hard to argue that Gee Dubya is any sort of free market crusader.

Soc Security "reform" has absolutely nothing to do with "cutting spending" or reducing the program costs. Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it. Don't forget that Greenspan played a leading role in pushing for increases in the regressive payroll taxes in the 1980s to secure the Social Security system and then, two decades later, advocated for George Bush’s massively regressive tax cuts -- tax cuts that are, of course, the underlying cause of the ostensible Social Security “crisis” he’s so worried about now. Greenspan is a Ayn Rand disciple from way back, so its no surprise he'd fall in line with those who'd make government small enough to drown in a bathtub (while fattening a few wallets on the way, of course).

Asuming for a second that the popular line that this latest round of U.S. trade protectionism and catering to domestic special interests is in some way related to missile defense or any other Canadian actions, what does that say about our relationship with the U.S.? "Hey Canada, we love you guys. You're totally free to make decisions in your own interests. But when it comes to the You Ess of Eh you either do as we say or get f**ked and f**ked hard." With friends like these....