Black Dog

And you have yet to pony up any evidence of such an alliance between the secular, Sunni-Arab socialist Hussein and his long time foe, the theocratic, Shiite-Persian Iran. Nor is there much indication of any coperation between Iraq and Syria. Syria sided with Iran during the Iran/Iraq war and the Syrian Ba'ath has what could be best described as an adversarial relationship with their Iraqi counterparts. While there was a slight thaw in relations during the late '90s, I've yet to see any evidence that's much more than heresay.

I meant of losses that could specifically be linked to Candians being 'rushed to war" due to our insufficient, pre-war, professional military.' If we are as weak as people say, if we are as much of a target as the U.S. and if military strength is a gurantor of safety, why was teh U.S. hit on 9-11 and not us? But Canada has not been attacked. Unless such a thing occurs, OBLs words are just empty posturing. And dictators don't stay dictators by being suicidal. Since we can assume that "rougue states" have pl;enty to lose, then you must be referring to terrorist use of ICBMs. But what are the odds of such an event occurring? Where would tehy get them. That's not to say such a threat is not within the realm of possibility, but I sincerly doubt it's enough of a legitimate threat as to justify BMD.

Inorganic crude: much ado about nothing That's putting in mildly. Abiotic oil: science or politics? So as long as your admonishing others to "deal in facts, not assumtions, myths or outright lies that are used as attempts to gain power", you might want to start by setting an example. Like those damned pinkos in the Pentagon?

I'm saying its hogwash because the U.S. has been calling the shots for 50 years (DEW line, anyone?) If they have a problem with our committment to their defense, they can leave us alone to defend ourselves from our non existent enemies on our own. You, for one. Examples? No. Why not? Surely we wold be a more tempting target? So? Getting it to work would be a great first step. But he errs in using the actions of individuals and small groups to suggest natonal behaviours. Not yet. Before BMD, there was a 100 per cent success rate against the ICBMs that weren't launched. Why do ya suppose 60-some years of nuclear standoff happened without a single nuclear exchange? Just an observation.

How so? Uh no. It's understood that for marriage to have any meaning, it needs to be between people who are making a concious choice to marry someone they are (presumably) attracted to. Homosexuals currently do not have that option. No one else's status changes. Hetero marriages will not suddenly cease to exist. Gay marriage will be an option for gay people, not mandatory for all. The Supreme Court, as well as lower courts in BC and Ontario have ruled out civil unions as an option. I've yet to see an argument against SSM that stands up to even the lightest scrutiny. Most are based on illogic, intolerance and fear, or simple ignorance of the law and its applications. Sez who? I know many people who are for SSM that are also fine with polygamy. Same goes for me. If everyone involved is cool with it, and are all consenting adults and some kind of workable legal framework can be developed, let 'em have at 'er. No, the problem is people keep dragging ploygamy into the SSM debate, even though the two are unrelated.

So all this talk of us riding the U.S.'s coattails is a bunch of hogwash. The U.S. has only been too happy to shoulder that burden. Which is unfortunate. I do find ita little weird that the very same individuals bemoaning the sad state of our military and lack of independence from the U.S. on military matters are the same people arguing for further integration through BMD and such. It's becoming increasingly apparent that this Sharansky characte is a bit of an idiot (the use of the word "appeasement" is a dead give away). The Cold War wa swon not by Regan's bluster or by America's massive military budget (which did more fo padding the stock portfolios of people like Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and the Carlyle Group than for national defense), but rather by the inherent instability of the Soviet system. Western intelligence knew this fact as far back as the '60s and were proven right. Detente worked. It's known now (from records unearthed after the fall of the Soviet Union) that the Soviets were so rattled by Reagan's militarism that they contemplated launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the U.S. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, but it shows that strength will always be met with strength, threats with threats. Yeah, history has shown Canada and Canadians have been more than willing to step up when they or their allies are threatened. Fortunately, we live in an age where such threats are minimal, and where the primary threats to global security are criminals waging assymetrical warfare. The only other threat to global stability is the increasing belligerant superpower to the south which is doing it darndest to make as many enemies as it can. (Another point on military funding: the U.S.A. spends as much on the military as half of the rest of the world combined, yet was still unable to prevent 9-11. canada spends a fraction of the U.S.'s military budget on defense, yet has never been a victim of a terrorist attack. I think this says a lot about the relative virtues of our respective approaches to the world and that if one throws one's weight around, one can expect to make soem determined enemies.) Blah blah blah. MacKenzie's talking out of his hat. Bascically, BMD is useful... IF Iran and North Korea develop ICBM capability (yet remain incapable of developing soem kind of countermeasures for BMD, such as decoy warheads)... IF they decide to commit wholesale suicide by attacking first (Mackenzie then uses various unrelated terrorist events to illustrate his little theory, which basically hinges upon the assumption that the "Others" are just plumb crazy.)... IF it doesn't cost us anything (for now)... and IF they actually get it to work. That's a lot of IFs. In any case, the biggest error he and others who argue for BMD make is the assumption that such a system is to be used purely for defense. The U.S has been quite explicit in it's inetentions to wage preemptive war on any state it sees fit tom attack. BMD is part and parcel of a strategy designed to support U.S. offensive operations abroad by neutralizing any retaliatory measures a nation attacked by the U.S. might undertake.

Detainee abuse "widespread": report The New Iraq?

They are apples and oranges in the sense that legalizing same sex marriage does not have any connnection with polygamy. If someone wanted to challenge the polygamy provisions in the Criminal Code they could have done sop at any time. Changing the civil definition of marriage from "one man and one woman" to "two persons" doesn't have any bearing on polygamy. To believe otherwise betrays a woeful ignorance of constitutional law. Again, this has absolutely no bearing on gay marriage.

Except no such alliance existed between iran and Iraq,. You're talking rubbish. Hilary is, quite frankly, full of crap. Even the Kay report showed no evidence of any WMD program. Yes, Saddam had the desire, but he did not have the means.

Because to force them to do so would violate the same law and principles that require that we recognize gay marriages. A wise fellow once said: Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's and unto God that which belongs to God. Civil marriage is Ceaser's, religious marriage belongs to the churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. We can strike a balance between the two that respects some individuals' rights to freedom of religion and other individuals' rights to equal tratment under the law. And that's what is happening with the upcoming legislation.

When it comes to fascism, I'll tender the definition most often attributed to Mussolini, which is, if nothing else, concise: As for democracy, I think the late Johnny Carson best summed it up back in 1991:

Iran? You mean Saddam's arch nemesis? The country he spent 10 bloody years fighting? That Iran? As for Syria, how exactly did this transfer of WMD escape the attention of America, which surely must have been aware of such a possibility. No, the most likely explanation is also the simpilest: Iraq was disarmed after the first Gulf War. There were no WMD.

Sexual orientation is, by and large, an immutable characteristic. Like race. In any case, I don't see why someone's bias or bigotry should be excused simply because its based on religious grounds.

neitehr case has anything to do with religious practices. Again, in the first case, we're talking about discrimination because they are refusing to provide someone services, even though that service (rental of the hall) has absolutely nothing to do with religious observance. In the second case you're defending someone's right to refuse to do thier job. Let me propose a scenario and you can tell me what you think: we have a civil servant who is also a member in good standing of the local Aryan nations chapter. As such, his personal beliefs forbid him from performing civil marriage ceremonies for persons of colour or for mixed race couples. What would you do if you were his supervisor and you received a complaint that your employee was allowing his personal biases interfere with his job performance?

They're not "hijacking" anything from religious groups. The word in question is a legal definition. Again: how does expanding the civil/legal definition of marriage in any way affect religious groups? Right, because renting a hall has nothing to do with religious observance and so this practice is discriminatory. Would you defend a Catholic landlord who, after one too many viewings of "The Passion of the Christ", refused to rent an apartment to a Jew if he felt his religion forbade it? IMHO, if someone's PERSONAL beliefs make them unwilling to perform the basic requirements of their job, they should probably find another line of work. Not really, because, as an example, it shows the wekness of the notion "seperate but equal". In the cas eof civil unions, the courts have determined that they are not equal.

Because they're not stepping on anyone's toes. That 1% of the population is simply asking for the same rights as the other 99% of the population. No more, no less. Why is that 99% so worked up about something that doesn't even affect them? Because the only people this will affect are gay people who want to get married. Period. SFW. It doesn't affect them. It's none of their business. Marriage is a big deal for the homosexual community because it represents another step on the road to equality and acceptance. Homosexual relationships have been traditionally marginalized and maligned. Including same sex couples within the definition of marriage shows society that gay people are just as capable of participating in meaningful, lasting relationships as anyone else. Again: gay marriage affects nobody except those gays who wish to be married. Just like segregated schools in the pre-civil rights South were "just different".

That's also the decision of the Supreme Court, as well as courts in B.C. and Ontario. "Seperate but equal" is not equal. Under the Constitution, parliament has the power to define marriage and provinces have the power to create civil unions. This means that the federal government has no juridstiction over civil unions. As well, any national system of civil unions would require all the provinces and territories to enact identical laws. Given that seven provinces have already ok'd gay mariage, that won't happen. So it would seem it comes down to a word. So what's wrong with letting gay peole use the same word? Define "different".

By actively pursuing policies that expand state power, limit personal freedoms (ie. Patriot Act), and forter a climate of fear which allows them to do so. Indeed. I'd like to hear yours.

Because forcing churches to marry gays violates their right to freedom of religious expression. And noone's interested in denying anyone rights. The civil/legal definition has no bearing on the issue of religious marriage. Forcing the restraunt owner to allow gays only violates his right to be an asshole, which, last I checked, was not constitutionally protected. I don't know why you think we can't have it both ways. We can. And will. I posted a link a few posts back explaining why. I suggest you go back and have a look.

I guess I can understand why people would choose to believe Bush's pronouncements on freedom and democracy, even in light of the decidely anti-liberty and anti-democratic policies of his government: to contemplate such hypocrisy would cause even the most ardent true believers' heads to explode from a surge of cognitive dissonance.

George W. Bush and the 14 points of fascism Which is completely unrelated to fascism.

Not an option.

It is equal because the civil/legal definition of marriage will be expanded to include homosexual unions. This covers everyone. If some churched refuse to perform sam-sex ceremonies on religious grounds, they are allowed under the clauses of the Charter guaranteeing religious freedom. But gays will still have the right to get married in civil ceremonies or in religious ceremonies in churches with gay-friendly doctrines.

August1991: That's not in the Charter. The Charter is part of the constitution, the supreme law of the land. Well it's mighty hard to comment on this without some sort of background. Got a link? Regardless, though, this is not a religious issue. The KoC likely rent the hall to anyone, so to deny service to someone becaus eyou don't like them is a no no. Would they likewise be allowed to refuse that service to someone based on the colour of their skin? Again: the legislation to legalize same-sex marriage explicitly allows religious officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds. Yes, because to not allow their behaviour (when other types of behaviuor are tolerated) is discriminatory. Similarily, if the KoC refuses to rent their hall to gays, they should also refuse to rent to Jews, Muslims, Sihks, and Protestants.

Yes. It's nascent fascism.