Black Dog

You certainly made every effort to give him the benefit of the doubt. And here I thought it was us lefties who were supposedly "soft on crime". Meanwhile, let's seee how this is playing in Iraq: Baghdad Burning How many times was the U.S. proper attacked before 9-11?

Favorite as in "best", or favorite as in "i can't believe how full of s**t Condi is."?

Precisely. There's no such thing as a free market: for instance, while doing a bit or reading this morning on this subject, I came across a tidbit stating that U.S. automakers are demanding massive government handouts to continue to develop alternative fuel vehicles: corporate welfare. We can agree, then, that the system itself needs an overhaul. But realistically, I don't see the increasing merger of state and corporate power reversing itself anytime soon. Fuel-efficiency standards didn't create SUVs. the manufactures did because they envisioned a market for them and set about creating one. The "light truck" loophole allowed them to bypass the standards, but I fail to see how regulation was responsible: if there was no regulation, I expect SUVs would be even larger and less efficient. The same manufacturers have also lobbied continually for the removal of the efficiency standards and have successfully kept them at their 1970s levels.

What I find very interresting is that Hassan's kidnapping was roundly condemmed in Iraqi society: the Fallujah mujahadeen demanded her release, as did Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Meanwhile, the videos differed markedly from similar ones that have percolated: no Islamic banners, no armed and hooded men. No declarations of jihad from the Qu'ran. Something's fishy here.

The evidence is right there on tape. There's no fear or hesitation: it's an execution, plain and simple. Hassan's killing was an unconscionable act against an innocent by criminals who should be punished appropriately. The execution of the wounded Iraqi (which, if history is indicator, is just the tip of the iceberg) was perpetrated by an occupying foreign military power in the name of democracy. Both are reprehensible criminal acts, yet you take great pains to excuse and justify one but not the other. Why? If, for the sake of argument, we accept the official version of events, hassan's death is further proof of the folly underlying the war in Iraq: the lie that the war makes the world safer from terrorism. Hassan lived and worked in Iraq for 30 years, yet came to harm only after the U.S. invasion turned the tide of trust away from foreigners.

I don't buy this. We've known fossil fuels have been a dead end for a long time now, yet the "free market" has responded very slowly. The auto industry is a good example. For every step forward (such as the painfully slow development of low-emission, high fuel efficient hybrid or electrical vehicles) they take two steps back (ever bigger SUVs). North American automakers in particular have been slow to respond and have exploited every opportunity and squeezed every lobby they can (such as holding off any changes to the federal fuel-economy standards) in order to maximize their short-term profits for shareholders at the long term expense. I'm not saying alternative energy sources won't be explored: only that automakers and the oil industry will do everything in their power (which is a lot) to prolong the wait.

Fallujah 101 We all know what happens to those who ignore the lessons of history.

The killing of an unarmed, wounded Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque was caught on film. Is there any doubt that the U.S. is losing the war? Their military superiority has failed to bring about an end to the resistance and atrocities like this will cost them the support of everyday Iraqis. Incidents like this will prompt further barbarity in response, foster anti-American sentiment and provide terrorists with ample fodder for recruitment. Like Vietnam, I think this war will cost the U.S. a piece of its soul.

You're oversimplifying the issue. But we can break it down a little bit. Consider this: the US, with 5% of the world's population, consumes 45% of the oil. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the Department of Energy, the US will be importing 70% of its oil from abroad by 2025. That ain't chicken feed. Domestic oil production has fallen, while places like Venzuala and Saudi Arabia have become problematic for political reasons. Therefore, establishing a U.S-friendly regime on top of the world's second largest oil supply is very beneficial. Control of Iraq's oil would also allow the U.S. to exercise greater control of prices (by breaking the OPEC straglehold) and access. China, the U.S.'s biggest rival, has exploded from a small oil exporter in 1989 to an importer of almost 2 million barrels per day. Controlling who gets access to the oil gives the U.S. a great strategic upper hand. Finally, there's teh mattter of good old fashioned greed. Look at the Bush cabinet. As Maple says, follow the money. This is an administration with crude in it's veins and deep ties to the industry. These guys will slip back into the pockets of Big Oil as soon as their tenure in Washington is done, so they are doing their best to ensure the political conditions exist to maximize profit for themselves and their buddies. SUV's are the top selling vehicles in the U.S. Consumers steadfastedly refuse to adopt consumption patterns that affect their lifestyle, while oil companies and the auto industry have a myopic view of the bottom line that avoids any change that could jeaporize short-term profit. And Bush's solution to "energy independence" is to increase domestic production, not reduce consumption.

We've been through this before. The actions of Isreal vis a vis the Occupied Territories are wholly inconsistent with western values. I didn't say war criminals. I said terrorism. Israel was founded on terrorism. Many prominent Israelis were involved in terrorist organizations which took part in anti-British and Arab operations prior to the establishment of Israel (begin led the Irgun which biombed the King David Hotel, Sharon was a member of the Haganah). I already compared Araft to such "moral" leaders as Sharon. Both have the blood of countless innocents on their hands and will, if such a place exists, co-habitate in Hell.

I expect Ashcroft and Powell's departures will lead to a Bush cabinet that is even less moderate than the current one (not that either of those individuals were paragons of moderation themselves.) I don't think anyone will or should give much credence to Bush's claim that he's interested in uniting the country: he owes his election to the forces of divisiveness aqnd they will expect their due.

So western pundits look disapprovingly down their noses at the admiration for Arafat among the Palestinian people. "But what of his victims?" they sniff, convientently excising the memories of our opwn symbols of liberty: a rogue's gallery of slavers and terrorists. Yes, Arafat, like so many of his counterparts in the Israeli government, was a terrorist. He was also a potent national symbol, a role I expect he will play far more effectively in death.

Does your lack of sympathy extend to the thousands of foreign fighters that floded Iraq back in march 2003?

So now they can "acidentally" destroy civilian targets from even further away? Great.

... just the outright propegation of anti-Christian and anti/semetic hate speech. lol Hmm. No examples. No citations. You are, as usual, full of crap. This is another great example of how conservatives are not only devoid of principles, but they are also divorced from reality.

Only a complete and utter moron would trivailize the abuses at Abu Ghirab. Really we've been through this a billion times and you're obviously too thick to clue in: the abuses were torture. Torture is against international law to which the United States is signatory to and therefore obligated to uphold. For your further edification, here's a brief history of international humanitarian law. I also find your whining about "one-sided liberal organizations" to wring hollow given how quickly you and yours are to point to Sadam's violations of UN resolutions as justification for the invasion of Iraq. Not really relevant, I know, but another example of conservatives' total lack of principles. Well, it just goes to show that vile, inhumane pigs come in all all colours.

Sorry, but that dog doesn't bark. My personal opinions of religion are one thing: however, I'm not advocating for any legislation to prevent people from holding those beliefs or practicing them. It's the religious right that's trying to use the law to withold people's rights. Conservatives, it seems, hate freedom.

According to AP, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales has been selected by Bush to replace John Ashcroft as Bush’s second Attorney General. Gonzales helpes penn the legal opinion that justified Bush’s rejection of the Geneva Convention protocols in the treatment of Afghan and Taliban prisoners, and he crafted an argument aimed at shielding Bush and the military command from war crimes prosecutions which also helped facilitate the torture at Abu Gahrib.

Portrait of a crusader.

Whle your information on the actual make up of the U.S. electorate is interesting, it's largey beside the point: the fact is, the U.S. electorate voted Bush in, complete with his anti-gay, anti-abortion, theoconservative "values", neoconservative voodoo economic policies and aggressive militaristic foreign policy. The question McQuaig is addressing is how does Canada now address the issue of our relationship with a U.S government whose stance on many issues is quite different from those of this country's electorate.

We're still waiting for an answer to the question of how gay marriage will have any afect on indiiduals' traditional values. Oh give me a break. The Southern segregationists in the '60s "stood up for their beliefs" in the face of what was seen as an attack on traditional values. They were the wrong beliefs to defend, just as the traditional values of exclusion and division are wrong today. How can a poltical system with a mere two parties of questionable distiction be considered balanced? Especially when that system has built in checks to limit the power of the people? Which doesn't explain why fewer westerners voted Conservative in the last election than in the prior one.

They seem to manage okay.

He could blow the surplus...oh wait: he's done that. He could oversee a net job loss..oh wait: he's done that. Uh...I know! he could invade a Middle Eastern country! Oh nuts. (Granted, he has others to choose from.) Well, he's done a lot in the first four years: I shudder to think at how much more he could "accomplish" in the next four. I gues sthere is. Though I can't say I am particularily "pro" Americans who voted for Bush and his agenda of division. On the plus side, America isn't as divided as the punditocracy would have us believe: Election results maps.

Uh. No. Not to defend the P.A., which is admittdly corrupt, but the conditions imposed by the Israeli occupation are not exactly conducive to building a viable civil society. Remove the occupation, and you remove the number one barrier to the progress of a Palestinian state.

Puritanism of the rich