Black Dog

I watched Fox News a bit down in the States. It's similar to watching the chimpanzees at the zoo, only with slighly more masturbation and feces throwing. You mean Rachel Marsden, who filed a sex harrasment suit against her university swim coach, the allegations of which were later revealed to be false? The same woman who was also found guilty of harassing an ex-boyfriend last October? Link. It's ths kind of trivialization ("It coud never happen here!") that provides fertile soil for fascism to take root.

They can cal themselves whatever they want. "Marriage" is a legal term. "Husband" and "wife" are not. "Spouse" is. No, the hope is that acceptance or tolerance of gay marriage would reduce the stigmatization of gay relationships and lead to broader acceptance. But that would be a side benefit compared to simple equal treatment under the law. The law says we are to be treated equally and not discriminated against because of factors outsid eof our control. You are bluring the lines between societies views on gays and different lifestyles and the strict legal concept of equality.

Ah, but Japan and Germany started World War 2, so their were not only genuine threats, but their defeat was a necessary first step. Once that was accomplished, the work turned to making sure they were viable, pluralistic democracies. In this conflict, the U.S. was the aggressor. "Regime change" was one of the main reasons behind the invasion (along with the phantom WMD). This is another key difference in the two situations. For Iraq to be a true democracy, it would require full control over important decisions, like the fate of its oil industry. Yet one of the first decisions the CPA made was to liquify all state assets and can 500,000 state workers. Basically the U.S. completely destroyed and rebuilt Iraq's civil and economic structure in its own image before handing nominal power over to the U.S. appointed council. These changes (changes which Iraqis had no say in) will be difficult, if not impossible to roll back. And even if an Iarqi government decided to re-nationalize key industries, do you think the U.S. would allow such a thing to happen? My point is that the U.S. has hamstrung the latent Iraqi democracy and, while "soverignty-lite" may guarantee stability, it means the new Iraq cannot be a democracy in the true sense of the word. See, real democracies can also be unpredictable. People in democracies have a tendency to look out for their own interests over those of foreign governments or corporations. So, when you're trying to buikld a country in as strategically valuable location as Iraq, you're gonna make damn sure that country stays cozy with you, no mater who's in charge. And, if history has shown us anything, the U.S. is not the slightest bit squeamish about helping to crush democracy when it threatens their interests.

For the umteenth time: civil unions aren't practical because "any uniform national system of civil unions would require the ten provinces and three territories to enact identical laws in their jurisdictions." And Ontario and B.C. courts have already ruled that civil unions for same-sex couples would be unconstitutional because they still amount to discrimination. It's not that hard to grasp. To borrow an analogy from gay conservative Andrew Sullivan: If you're going to give homosexual couples the same rights as straight couples, why are you calling it something different? If both can drink the same water, why a different water fountain?

Oh good: now I can drop the pretense of taking your opinons seriously. Colmes is to punditry what the Washington Generals are to basketball. O'Reilly's show is one big lowlight.

At the time, yes. And that's why the rebuilders put such effort into ensuring that the postwar democracies in those countries would succeed. Given the way things have gone in Iraq, there's only two possible conclusions: 1) The U.S wanted to bring democracy, but are so grossly incompetent that they utterly botched the job from the word go. 2) Democracy in Iraq was, at best, a secondary goal of the invasion. *sigh* The problem with this analysis is that it completely disregards the (and I hate this expression) "facts on the ground", which point away from democracy as being the goal in Iraq. You're basically saying "George Bush says that they are bringing democracy to Iraq. Democracy is good. What's the problem?" I'm not saying a democracy in Iraq wouldn't be a good thing. What I am saying is nothing Bush and company have done have coninced me that's the goal. Iraqis. And yes it matters. I can't believe you're unable to grasp why the U.S. military would be precieved to be unimpartial. So the United Nations is suddent "relevant again"? I'm having a hard time keeping up. As for the rest, well, let's see: the U.S. controls Iraq's soverignty through th emilitary occuipation, the current Iraqi government was established by the occupiers and doesn't really have any say on the amtter. Didn't say that. Germany and Japan also maintained their own civil institutions. Whereas the civil structure in Iraq was totally dismantled. Which kinda illustrates my point that Iraq is not truly soverign so long as the U.S. is the one calling the shots where it matters. Read it again: That means U.S. troops and contractors/mercenaries can commit war crimes and not face prosecution by anyone other than their own system. I guess the symbolism completely escapes you. IIRC, those particular changes require a constitutional amendment. I [posted at leats two articles discussing those differences and why the situations are differnt. If yoy can't be bothered to follow up, that's not my problem. Nor did I say democracy wouldn't work in Iraq. That presumes democracy is the objective.

Well, as vile as your views are, I at least respect your honsety. Unlike others who continue to parrot the Bush line that this is about freedom for Iraqis, you make no bones about admitting that that Americans are the only one's that matter.

Can you people even attempt to try a reasoned argument for a change? Honestly, you would think these things exist in a vaccumn. That Israel just magically sprung out of the (if you belive the Zionist narrative) unoccupied desert and was beset by evil Ay-rabs. It's a decidely ahistorical argument, and it's really not worth spending any more time on. Suicide bombings are not nearly as common as armed Israeli incursions into the Occupied Territories. Right. Because if a bunch of foreigners came in with tanks and bulldozers to kick you off the land you and your forefather's inhabited for generations to build armed enclosures for another set of foreigners, seperated you from your neighbours and kin with walls and checkpoints, denied you your very livliehood so that your children suffered from hunger and disease, you'd "behave yourself", I'm sure....

So you are advocating that homosexuals and adulterers be put to death?

Pbbth. You know, given the choice between idle threats from a dusty book penned by nomasdic tribesmen 2,000 yars ago and the Enlightenment principle of equality under the law, I'll take my chance with the latter. In any case, most Christisan should accept the Christ's commandment to love one another is superior. Gee: murder, lust, infidelity: that Bible sur emakes for a greta moral guidebook!

Or (gasp!) climate change! Seriously, no one has used the term "global warming" for 15 years.

You know, this kinda funny coming from a dude who goes on (and on and on and on) about environmentalist's hysteria. You got a little froth on your chin, dude.

Would you like to personally knife-rape the nuns or do you just like to watch?

Well, South Korea didn't become a democracy until the 1980s, when civil unrest overthrew the U.S.-backed military dictatorship of Park Chung Hee. Japan and Germany were also products of New Deal-style politics and a different worldview than wherein democracies were considered necessary to hold off the communiust threat. These experiments also had the blessing of a world which knew that the conflict that led to the Axis' defeat was a just one. Contrast this with Iraq where U.S.'s de facto unilateralism was oppossed by most of the world, and where idealogical considerations regarding free markets trumped sensible policy and where corrupt figures (remember Chalabi?) used the U.S. intervention to settle scores and line their pockets. And if it was manned by someone else other than the people who set up the "new" Iraq in their image in the first place, yeah, that would be an improvement. The issue is credibility. Iraq's "soverignty" is a joke. How soverign can a country be when: *US military bases remain, with more being built. *Some 160,000 troops of the United States and its allies remain, the Americans for at least two more years. *US military commanders will continue to exercise final authority over not only these troops, but also all Iraqi police, security and army units. *Immunity from Iraqi criminal charges for US military and contractor personnel continues. *A giant American embassy is being built (in Saddam's old palace, no less), to hold a thousand employees. *The new government has very limited power to change the laws and regulations decreed by the CPA and subsequently enshrined in the interim constitution (including massive privatization). *sigh* Do you even bother looking into any of the resources I provide? If not, let me know and I won't bother. Germany and Japan in 1945 are not Iraq in 2005. Different cultures. Different times. Different wars. Different players involved. Different geopolitical forces at work. Other than the difference in cultures, one difference that sticks out is the lack of any post-war resistance in Germany and Japan as well as the retention of key elements of pre-war society, which helped ease the transition, unlike the U.S.'s failed "de-Ba'athification".

Thanks. All we white middle-class heterosexuals want is the same rights as everyone else who's rights we've traditionally trampled on.

I'm the oposite: I say ban all marriages! Besides: I have a hard enough time keeping up with one woman. More than one would probably kill me or drive me insane. Ahem. TMI, dude. That does remind me: I've got to take that movie back.

Please don't.

Can we hate them (or at least be a somewhat cross at them) for being such a bunch of knuckleheads? It seems the current climate of so-called anti-Americanismis due to Americans' choices, not their place of birth. Ohferchrissake. As soon as we start lynching vacationers from south of the border, or beating them and tying them to fence posts or the back bumpers of pick up trucks, then we'll talk. As I said, no one hates Americans becaus ethey are American.

It is: by libertarians. However, the distinction lies in the fact that Canadians have chosen to implement social welfare policies by electing the governments that implemented them. They were not imposed on us from without. Because I have no reson to believe such is the case. The only thing to back up that theory is the Bush's rhetoric versus 200 years of American colonialism interventionism and support for tyrrany when it suited them to do so. There's also the idealogical underpinnings of the occupation to contend with. World history. The personal historys and connections of the individuals involved. Again, I can't tell if you're being intentionally disengenious or not. there's a difference bettween an impartial foreign observer standing in the corner with a clipboard and an trained killer in an M1 tank parked outside the polling station. I mean gosh: there were plenty of Russian "observers" on hand for the first 2003 Ukranian presidential election... Not really: there are but 35 UN workers in Iraq to assist in the election. The security situaton (remember the UN HQ getting blown to bits last year?) is so bad that the UN is unwilling to risk involvement. Ialso suspect there's some politics at play here to. Perhaps (and I'm speculating) the UN doesn't want to give legitimacy to an Iraqi government that is not likely to adequately represent Iraqis. Indeed it is. It's sad that American invasion and subsequent bungling has created a no-win situation for Iraqis. But the point remains that the Iraqi people and indeed people everywhere deserve the right to control their own destiny. Let them choose where they want their country to go and not make arbitray decisions on who shall be free or not. Think about it: the U..S has spent over $300 billion on Iraq. Do you think for second that, even if some Iraqi politician emerges with the balls to say "Thanks guys, we'll take it from here", that they'll simply walk away? Is the positioning of ex-CIA asset Iyad Allawi as Prime Minister and frontrunner in the election merely a big co-inky-dink? What about the fact that many Iraqi groups wanted free elections right after the fall of Saddam Hussein (before the insurgency got under way), but were rebuffed? The very fact that an election is taking place when it is is an American decision. At this point it's a failure. The U.S. has ensured their man Kazari got elected (there are many questions around that election too, including allegations of death threats and fraud) as president, but that position means little outside Kabul, where the rule of law is non-existent, militias are still armed and regional warlords run the show. If the U.S. wanted to build democracy in te region, they had a chance with Afghanistan. they blew it by chasing after phantom WMD in Iraq instead of securing Afghanistan and ensuring the safety of it's people. So either we're dealing with some of the biggest bumblers the world has ever seen, or maybe their intentions are not what they say they are.

Yes it is. We're not their parents, not are they our subjects. The only way for Iraqis to be truly free is if they are free not only from tyrrany, but from the meddling of foreign powers. Besides, there's no gurantee that the end of the occupation will mean more bloodshed. But the continuance of the occupation is a gurantoor of bloodshed. An actual, independent, functioning secular pluralistic democracy with full control over the fate of its own soverignty, including resources and markets. I also happen to wholly believe that such is not the end goal of the U.S. intervention. That's not to say they won't take it if by some miracle such a thing emerges (so long as it remains pliant to the U.S.), but they'll take a Saddam-lite puppet regime if it suits them. Well given that hese elections are being conducted under the auspices of a foreign military power, the end of the military occupation would be a good start. It's pretty easy to make those judgements when you are not the one under the gun. Hey kids, sorry we riddled your parents with bullets (accidents happen, donchewknow), but take heart: at least they died free! A government that is established by and whose affairs are directed by an outside authority. Gee, that's mighty big of them to make an offer they'll never have to follow through with. What a bunch of good sports! Because they're not the same situation at all?Are you being intentionally obtuse? The new Japan? Not even close.

But there's been no proof Saddam had WMD since the first inspections ended. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. I'll leave the final word on the subject to Charles Duelfer , who led the Iraq Survey Team in the WMD hunt until it ended lastmonth. His preliminary report (released in October) concluded that any chemical and biological weapons Iraq possessed had been destroyed in 1991, and no WMD program had even been reconstituted. It also found “no indication that Iraq had resumed fissile material or nuclear weapons research and development activities since 1991," which backs the International Atomic Energy Agency's report stating it had found no evidence of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq. I can understand why you and other Bush supporters are clinging to this myth: no one likes to be proved wrong or admit they've been had. But to keep banging on about WMD when the same people who were supposed to find them are saying they never existed is a little bit silly, don't you think? As for your links, I've no doubt there are sympathetic Syrians and Iranians who are travelling to Iraq to fight the occupiers, much as Muslims once travelled to fight the Soviet's in Afghanistan. Islamic tradition holds that when Muslims are attacked, then it becomes obligatory for all Muslims to defend against the attack; to participate in jihad. These people may even be doing so with the tacit or explicit approval of the state. But that's not evidence of a formal prewar arraingement between Iraq and its neighbours, but a reflection of the culture of the area. Of course, Iran and Syria would also have a vested interest in ensuring the U.S. occupation is hindered as much as possible.

Well, as much I find Bush reprehensible, I wouldn't actively wish for his death (nor would I shed any tears if it just sorta happened that way). The thing is Bush is not the problem, but a symptiom. The real disease is the fascism which has infected the American body politic. As for the U.S. failing, take heart: sic transit gloria mundi. Empire's fall and I believe the rise of fascism (in the form of the unholy alliance between corporate ploutocrats, reactionary religious fundamentalists and neconservative idealogues marching under the banner of "compassionate conservativism") marks the beginning of the end. Leaving Iraq to the Iraqis might lead to furthe rbloodshed or possible civil war, but at this point, it would be the only reasonable thing to do from a classical liberal perspective. Given the U.S.'s indifference to the plight of the Iraqi people prior to 1991 and heir committment to killing many more Iraqis now, I don't think lives saved is a benchmark or success in Iraq, nor is the establishment of a puppet regime or the holding of demonstration elections. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Ehen Allawi "wins" the election, the insurgency will lay down their weapons, ancient tribal and religious rifts will be miraculously healed, jobs will suddenly flourish, clean water will flow from the sea, money will sprout from trees, democracy will bring all Iraqis together and the Americans will link arms and serenade Iraq with a rousng chorus of "We are the Champions" before tipping their hats and going home to reflect on a job well done. OR... the elections will widely be considered illegitimate (how legitimate can an election be when candidates cannot show their faces and people can't even get to the polls to vote?), the insurgency will continue to grow in scope and audacity, the Iraqi army will remain ineffective due to threats, attrition and defections to the insurgency, The U.S. wil contine to buld its permenant bases and carry out operations against th einsurgency , killing many more civilians and creating more animosity. Ethnic divisions will keep on simmering, and above all, people will keep dying. So, is someone killed by a dictator less dead if they're killed by a U.S. bomb? Iraqis want freedom. I'm sure of that. But what they don't want is to exchange one boss (Saddam) for another (a U.S. puppet government). They want what everyone else wants: a chance to make their own way. Totally different situation, culture, and circumstances. Becasue simply having a vote isn't democracy.By that standard, Saddam's Iraq (which had both show elections for the antional party and real elections for local authorities) would be a democracy. I don't think Bush's supporters are necessarily uneducated and ignorant. Well, okay: some are. Others are just unable to sort truth from propaganda or are seduced by the black and white world of Bush, where complex problems have simple solutions, war is peace, etc. etc. It's the same illness that afflicted so many Germans, Italians and Spaniards in the '30s. Others know exactly what they are doing and are supporting Bush because he is their best shot at advancing their agenda.

I'm not arguing that Canada's military needs an overhaul. I've said repeatedly taht we need to have the ability to protect ourselves from threats to our soverignty. But thats not the issue. I see now that I've been lured into the trap of equating BMD with Canada's committment to self-defense; it's a trap I will now extricate myself from. And what was teh common denominator? Another question: when did that "list" come out? None. Which remains the case. Indeed, this would be the case even if Iran or North Korea developed the means to hit the U.S., as the threat of nuclear annihalation remains too strong a detrrent. You'll have to be more specific than "actions". Only 35 countries today have ballistic missiles. Only two possess ICBMs and ony two (Iran and North Korea) are suspected of developing them. The remainder (te majority of which are U.S. allies) possess short and medium range ballistic missiles. The declining threat For a more "official" estimate check this. So, it's far to say that the threat to the U.S. Homeland has been overstated by proponents of BMD. If anything, as China's example shows, BMD will increase the threat of ICBMs. The threat of terrorists seizing ICBMs is negligible compared to the theat of nuclear, chemical or biological attack through other means.

I've articulated numerous arguments demonstrating this is, in fact, a rights issue. The Supreme Court of Canada, the constitution and 7 provinces all agree that this is a equal rights issue. "Sanctity": it means sacred or holy. These are terms of faith, not of law. The legal institution of marriage is made by man and set down in his laws and thus subject to the tides of social and cultural change. If that were not the case, marriage would still be a contract denoting ownership of property with the woman as chattel (the real "traditional" marriage). Hold up there. How does extending the franchise of marriage (as it were) to people who want nothing mor ethan to make a legal, public and formal declaration of thier relationship "cheapen" marriage? If you ask me, heterosexuals have done far more to cheapen the institution, what with widespread divorce, rampant infidelity etc etc. Tell me: what difference does it make if the people who want to express their love for one another happen to be of the same sex. I'm having a hard time following this logic: marriage is marriage because it is marriage, so any redefinition of marriage is not marriage? Huh? Again: marriage is, quite literallly, not set in stone. And equality is not political correctness. How long wil you people beat your heads against the dead end of "civil unions"?

Fair point. There's also the issue of incompetent leadership which cost many thousands of lives during both conflicts. But the point was: Canada has ever been willing to defend itself from threats to its security. It just so happens that, these days, such threats are few and far between and best dealt with by means other than a large military. No. Only that bin Laden can blsuter an threaten whoever he wants from his cave: that does not necessarily constitute a legitimate threat. Cold War, anyone? Power. Control. The one trait dictators tend to share is meglomania. And it's awful hard to force a pile of irradiated corspes to put up your photo in a place of honour. Sure. Possible? Yes. probable? I dunno. I do know there are easier ways to strike (as 9-11 showed), yet the attention and funding BMD has recieved has outstripped spending on homeland security. If my number crunching is correct (based on BMD program estimates through 2009 and Homeland Securities 2004 budget request) BMD gets about $7.8 billion a year to Homeland Security's $800 million.