Black Dog

I think once you establish that they are monsters, the question of to what degree becomes less important. If freedom and democracy are the ends we seek, whay are we still tolerant of such vileness in our allies? I dunno why the fact that someone is willing to kill and die for a living (that is: pay) makes it any better than killing and dying for a cause. Nor do I know why someone could be less of a terrorist simply because they wear a uniform and use an assault rifle. (Not that I'm talking about Canadians specifically, mind you). Ultimately, someone like Charles Graner or the American sniper who (allegedly) picked off an entire family in Fallujah while they were under a flag of truce is on the same moral plane than a sucide bomber. So you're saying that no Iraqi civilians have died at the hands of American troops? Or that it happens, but only occassionally and by accident? Iraq veteran speaks

I assume that if it came down to it, those peopel would still kill and die for their country, seeing as how its their job? So when American soldiers in Iraq kill civilians, they do it out of kindness? there's certainly an argument to be made for safeguarding North American security. Missile defense isn't the way to do it. Puh-leeze. American protectionism is behind those actions, plain and simple. I am certainly more concerned with paying off my credit card bill than I am with protecting North America from incoming missiles. For one thing, there;s a 100 per cent chanc eof me getting my credit card bill and a microscopic chance of getting hit with a North Korean nuke. As for taxes, ar our taxes high? Taxes at the bottom end are high relative to income levels due to the existence of the PST, GST, medical insurance premiums, user fees for government services, and otehr regressive non-tax taxes. On the other hand our taxes can be considered high, but relative to what? And are we getting as much bang for our buck as we should be. if notr, why (hint: it has nothing to do with them goshdurned Quebecois and much more to do with the government's chop chop policies of the past 25 years, policies pushed for by Bay Street and conservative groups like the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation). Yeah. Sure you do. And I'm sure that had nothing to do with you being bughouse loco...

You want to line your pockets with the public's money too?

Nope. Born'n'bred as they say round these parts. Again: what do the French in France have to do with anything? I guess the better question should be self-directed: why am I wasting my time with such bigotted craparola?

In 2004 the Liberals took 21 out of a total of 75 seats in Quebec, down from 36 in 2000. And FYI I'm from Alberta. The law does allows retailers to display English words. But there must be a French translation, seen as markedly predominant. What does this have to do with Quebec?

The disengagement plan published in the Israeli papers on Friday, April 16, specifies that "Israel will supervise and guard the external envelope on land, will maintain exclusive control in the air space of Gaza, and will continue to conduct military activities in the sea space of the Gaza Strip." Israel also reserves for itself the right to act militarily inside the Gaza strip. In other words, the "disengagement" is really about creating the illussion of progress even as the Palestinians are essentially locked down and isolated. In the meantime, under this pretense, Israel will complete the seperation wall and expand setllement in the West Bank. Nope. Forty percent of the Gaza Strip remains under Israeli settlements and military installations. The West Bank territory was partitioned into three separate categories, apart from the Israeli-held settlements and annexed East Jerusalem. Israel maintains full security and civil control of more than 60 per cent of territory in the West Bank. Only 18% of the West Bank is under full PA control. Even after full PA control extended to many Palestinian villages in 1998, Palestinian-ruled areas remain unlinked to one another and the PA does not have control over security, border crossing, water or major roads.

No. Next question.

In 2004, nealry 50 per cent of Qubecers voted for the BQ.

If this is truly a mass, popular movement then good luck to them. A home grown democracy would be a good thing for the region. Perhaps a Syrian withdrawl will inspire an end to other military occupations, such as those in the West Bank/Gaza Strip and Iraq. But I doubt it. A Lebanon primer.

Egypt: Mass arrests and torture in the Sinai Saudi Arabia: flogging used to silence protesters I'd say these are failry indicative of Middle east countries. And I don't see how bringing up some of Saddam's crimes (the worst of which were perpetrated while he was buddy-buddy with the U.S. of A) lets these guys off the hook. I guess by the same token, one can assume most American (or Canadian, for that matter) men are happy to die for their country given how many volunteer for their armed forces. See, to me, the U.S's motives are just as suspicious, even if they are being conducted under the banner of "spreading democracy". IMV, spreading democracy requires a much more arms-length relationship with the countries that need to be democratized. In other words, the west should stop supporting repressive regimes simply because it suits their interests to do so and start gioving support to home-grown democratic movements. The world needs true democracy, not some sembelance thereof who's true puropose is to advance a foreign cause. That's my point. The U.S is not some benign, selfless nation just looking to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, but a nation with powerful interests and given to using realpolitik to ensure its ends are met.

The moderates currently run the show and the extremists will stand idle as long as it appears the new Iraq will be dominated by the Shiite elements. that could change if the United States starts bombing the hell out of thier Iranian bretheren. Define "relevant". Clearly, the U.S is the most powerful today, but if we're talking about what country is on everybody's radar, the answer would be China. The China Card.

I'm sur ethey are, just not to the same degree that they could be involved. Right now, they have to be cautions and not be seen to be too closely involved. If the U.S. hits first, then Iran would surely step up efforts to mobilize Shia partisans in Iraq to try to turn the Iraqi south into an extension of the insurgency in the Sunni triangle. Increasingly so. They've isolated themselves from their allies. Certainly nobody in Europe wants to be seen as cozying up to Bush given his rampant unpoularity there. Even "friends" like Putin are shaking hands, smiling and then ignoring him. A good summary: Why Europe ignores Bush.

b etaht as it may, if the U.S. were genuineliy interested in spreading democtracy in the region, those two client states, two key nations that are the furthest thing from democracies (one a military dictatorship, the other an absolute monarchy and both with depolrable human rights records), would be a good place to start. There's nearly 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. To imply that most of them are suicidal maniacs is pretty sweeping statement. You're basing your argument on a very debatable premise: that being that the U.S. is interested in making the world better purely out of the kindness of its heart. I believe the U.S. acts only to further its own national interests. In that sense, they are different from France or Russia or China only in their greater ability to project their power.

Sure. I expect they are planning for just such an eventuality. I don't doubt they've been watching Iraq very closely and have been taking notes. Frankly I find your scenario to be extremely rosy, which is reminiscint of the heady days in spring 2003 when shock and awe would bring the Iraqi government to its knees and lead to a quick and nearly bloodless resolution. We saw how that worked out. Or they'd start seriously working to f**k the U.S.'s s**t up in Iraq. This much we can agree on. Israeli-American nuclear supremacy is important to the U.S. strategic plans for the region.

Hmm. You forgot the bit where American troops will be greeted in Tehran with flowers and candy. Realistically, if there's a strike on Iranian nuke facilities, it will be through American proxy forces in Israel. This will inevitably lead to retaliation by Iranian forces (if they're smart, they won't challenge the U.S or Israel directly, but use proxies such as Lebanese Hezbollah guerrilla forces or Iraqi Shia insurgents.) The "Shock and Awe" scenario is more shuck and jive, as there's no way airpower or special forces alone could topple a government like Iran. If the U.S. wants regime change in Iran, they'll need to do it themselves, which would risk igniting the whole region in a conflict that would make Iraq lookk like Grenada.

Back on topic: I don't believe Canada's "no" to missile defense is a "no" at all. (Hell, it's the Liberals we're talking about.) Basically, Martin's announcement wa sto molllify critics in the oppossition and soothe a public that opposses the plan. But Canadian personelle and resources will go into this project through NORAD. This is a lot like Chretien's refusal to participate in the Iraq war, even as Canadian frigates plied the waters of the Gulf. ClassicGrit governance: talk from the left, rule from the right. None of which changes the fact that missile defense is a massive boondoggle makes our sponsorship scandal look like chump change.

If that's the case, why does the United States continue to support despotic regiems in the Mid East like Egypt and Saudi Arabia? This kind of cutural stereotyping is unacceptable. To me, this is the same as saying "a lot of Jews love money". No one's twisting the U.S.'s arm and demanding they walk the beat. They do so purely out of self-interest. Even the one's they helped put in in the first place.

Compare: To consider or describe as similar or analogous; liken. Equate: To make equal or equivalent. Your analysis is sloppy. So you're basically saying the U.Spolitical process is airtight and ironclad, and its actors insulated from the tendancy towards corruption that power brings? that's not logic, that's faith. As for hare-brained schemes, let's talk Watergate, Iran-Contra, Iraq, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the Patriot Act, NMD, Star Wars, the School of the Americas, Grenada, Monica, phantom WMD, etc etc... Basically, diabolical idiocy can prevail withing the confines of your precious and inviolable checks and balances. I don't think it's up to you to decide what terms are limited from the debate. There's a lot of pervasive arguments to be made that America is or at least moving toweards, empire status. Hell, there's those on the right to whom empire-building is a noble goal. Yopur problem is you arent capable in thinking in anything other than absolutes. To you, since Patriot Act does not equal fascism (as practiced historically) then all is right with the world. You don't seem to grasp how political systems are corrupted and how antidemocratic structures can develop in democracies. No, the Patriot Act, indefinite detention, officially mandated torture etc etc are not themselves indicators of an existing fascist state, but they are steps along that path.

Who owns water?

The idea that pot today is much stronger than weed of the past is another drug warrior myth. The myth of potent pot.

I've notice you tend to miss the point of such comparisons. For example, McQuaig's comparison was directed at the United States cavalier disregard for the soverignty of its neighbour's, a trait which the U.S.S.R displayed on more than one occassion. Does that mean she expects the U.S. to send tanks into Scarbourough? No. Furthermore, your initial response ("The Soviet Union was a dictatorial regime run by thugs. The US is a democracy with checks and balances.") simply points out the differences in structure between the two, which fails to account for any similaritiy in action (and indeed, implicitly rejects any such possibility). Now, I will say that these analogies are thrown around far too much. However, in some cases they are warranted (the Patriot Act, for instance, is a piece of legislation that would be perectly at home in a totalitarian or fascist state). Again, you oversimplify by saying that there is a single source of corruption which exists in the system.

Here's where you shudl start: open up a dictionary and look up the word "analogy". No one (myself or Linda McQuaig included) is saying the United States is exactly the same or as bad as the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. What we are saying is that something is rotten in the state of America. For starters, there's the simple reality that the influence of big money on the political process means American politicians operate largely in the interests of those who bankroll them. That's true regardless of political party. You also seem to operate under the assumption that these are unassialable facts and that the Constituition and its accompanying checks and balances are immue to errosion or atack. They are not. For example, take a look at a history of the war on drugs and see how private property and individual rights have been abused by the state.

Having never been there, it's hard to say. How about Vegas or Spring Break in Cancun?

Agreed. You really need one. In the aftermath of World War I, Great Britain was granted a mandate over Palestine by the League of Nations. By 1947, however, the violence directed at British officers by Jews and Arabs, and the financial drain on the declining imperial power after World War II, moved Great Britain to turn to the United Nations for help. In April 1947, the Arab nations proposed at the United Nations that Palestine be declared an independent state, but that measure was defeated a UN commission was set up to study the issue. In November 1947, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to recommend partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. The two states were to be joined in an economic union, and Jerusalem would be administered by the United Nations. The Arabs would get 43 percent of the land, the Jews 57 percent. On November 29, the General Assembly recommended the partition plan by a vote of 33 to 13. The Zionists accepted the partition reluctantly, hoping to someday expand the Jewish state to the whole of Palestine, but the Arabs did not. Violence between Jews and Arabs escalated and the new state of Israel was invaded by its Arab neighbours It is no exaggeration to say that our relations with the entire Arab world have never recovered from the events of 1947-48 when we sided with the Jews against the Arabs and advocated a solution in Palestine which went contrary to self-determination as far as the majority population of the country was concerned. Yeah, the fourth largest military in the world, the most advanced in the region and the only one with nuclear weapons is in imminent danger of being destroyed by an impovrished nation of refugees weilding crude homemade bombs and stones. What about the Palestinians who are under attack every single day? Actually, no, they cannot. The "right of return" has been rejected by Israel every single time it has come up in negotiations.

"I remember when conservatives favored restraint in foreign policy and wished to limit government power in order to protect civil liberties. Today’s young conservatives are Jacobins determined to use government power to impose their will at home and abroad." "In fact, if there was anything particularly striking about this year's CPAC, it is to just what extent Republicans have given up being the party of small government and individual liberty." "I don’t think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them — hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind."