Black Dog

This is a common canard and certainly meaningless without some actual evidence. No one on the left with an ounce of integrity would defend, for example, suicide bombings, but would acknowledge that such acts are for the most part symptomatic of the larger issue of the Occupation. That was my point. First, I've always found the "well our brutal human rights violations aren't as brutal as others'" to be a rather shoddy defense. Israel may not be the worst, but it's pretty bad, especially for a nation that is so often touted as "the only democracy in the Middle East". If Israel is indeed a "progressive democracy", would it not be appropriate to judge it by the standards of other progressive western-style democracies instead of by those of oppressive totalitarian regimes? I expect that the "amount of venom" (an extremely problematic term that I'll let slide for now) directed at Israel is due to the fact we expect better of democracies than to subject a segment of humanity within its juridstiction to such deplorable treatment. Also, the very nature of Israel as a nominal democracy means it's more likely to change than a place like, say, Syria. The other angle is that the argument "why Israel?" can just as easily be construed as an attempt to shield Israeli actions from scrutiny, a diversion. The flip side to this is "Why not Israel?" Finally, most leftists harbour no love for repressive regimes, period. The idea that criticism of one country must also be accompanied by a blanket condemnation of any number of others is just plain silly. It should be noted that "the right" has given the examples you mentioned equally short shrift. Indeed, it is the political establishment, and not the left, that supports and does business with Russia, China, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan etc etc etc. So unless concern for human rights is only allowed to be displayed by people of certain left-wing political convictions, your argument is disingenuous.

As Hugo pointed out earlier, there's a world of differnce between advocating for a sensebile and permissive drug policy and encouraging drug use: The purpose of safe injection sites is not to facilitate drug use. Safer injection rooms are legally sanctioned, supervised facilities designed to reduce the health and public order problems associated with illegal injection drug use. Safe injection rooms typically provide sterile injection equipment, information about drugs and health care, treatment referrals, and access to medical staff. The Vancouver site will likely include a room where addicts can inject drugs under the supervision of medical staff and with clean needles, spoons and water. It will also have a medical clinic for treatment of addiction-related health problems like abscesses and other infections, a counseling department for referrals to detox and treatment programs, and other associated services. Because some laws are better than others.

Discussing whether it's better to have one's head chopped off or blown off is pretty pedantic, and not reallly relevant. The broader issue it speaks to is whether there's a differnce between the deliberate execution of noncombatants, or the unintentional killing of noncombatants during military operations.

Well that settle sit, then. The former Baathist Prime Minister of Iraq (who is in power because of the Americans), says everything's okay. Please ignore the man behind the curtain. No quick democracy in Iraq Note that this assessment comes from the right-wing Cato institute.

The reason they did not use humanitarian reasons as the causus belli was precisely because the UN would not allow war on those grounds. Under the UN charter, nations can only fight wars in self-defence. The other problem with your argument is if nations are allowed to wage unilateral war for humanitarian reasons, who draws the line? There's many, many regimes in the world as bad as Saddam Hussein, yet there's little clamour to invade them all. The ultimate flaw of the Bush doctrine is that under it, might makes right. It is not a formula for peace and security, but of neverending conflict. Multilateralism is the only way. If the UN is not sufficient, reform the institution, do not abandon the principles upon which it was founded.

Does al-Zarqawi also have a secret underground fortress where he's breeding zombie Nazi Supermen? Seriously, this article is rife with inaccuracies and half-truths. Just what one would expect from Bullshit O'Reilly. Let's start with the obvious one: al-Zarqawi is possibly dead. Moving on... There's much debate as to whether Zarqawi is affiliated with al-Q'aeda, given a longstanding rivalry between him and bin Laden. Zarqawi runs an organization separate from Al Qaeda called Tawhid. One indication of his independence is that when he founded his training camp in Afghanistan in 2000, he did so near the western city of Herat, on the Iranian border, hundreds of miles away from Al Qaeda's camps. Furthermore, in in January, American forces found a letter believed to have been written by Zarqawi to Al Qaeda leaders hiding on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. It requested aid in fighting the Shiites of Iraq: "You, gracious brothers, are the leaders, guides and symbolic figures of jihad and battle. We do not see ourselves as fit to challenge you if you are convinced of the idea of fighting the sects of apostasy; we will be your readied soldiers." The tone of the letter is that of someone outside Al Qaeda appealing for its help. And Al Qaeda's leaders seem little interested in fomenting a Sunni-Shiite civil war in Iraq; in the audiotapes he has released in the past year, Osama bin Laden has made no mention of the Shiites. There's plenty of evidence that Zarqawi was not involved in the Berg execution: for one thing, the speaker on the videotape who identified himself as al-Zarqawi didn't have a Jordanian accent. Nor is there any evidence the individual on the tape has an artifical leg or hand tattoos, which Zarqawi does. 50 problems with the Nick Berg video Yeah, Bill. Liberals *heart* terrorists. For a better look at al-Zarqawi, check out this article in the Guardian. Finally, if Zarqawi is such a threat and Bush, as O'reilly claims, the only man for the job when it comes to fighting terror, why is it that Bush passed up so many opportunities to take Zarqawi out?

There is already an exsiting network.........FOX and the only thing stopping that is the CRTC. This was done to death elsewhere, but FOX is not banned in Canada. CanWest Global hlds the rights to launch Foxnews Canada (which must have 35% Canadaian content), while the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) applied to the CRTC in June to add Fox News to the list of non-Canadian channels eligible for digital carriage here, a move oppossed by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), whose members include CanWest Global. It's possible. Continuing with the example of Israel, it is possible that criticism of Israel may be based in anti-Semetic sentiment, sentiment that remains all too prevelant. However, criticism can also be rooted in a valid disagreement over political policy (for instance, few would argue that the global rejection of South Africa's apartheid policy in the 1980's was based on "anti-Boerism"). The problem is when defenders of said policies equate the two as a means of stifling debate and deflecting attention from the real issues. Fcat is, they still need us. Fact is, we're an autonomous country responsible primarily for the well-being of our own citizens. When that responsibility conflicts with the relationship with the U.S., the former should still take priority. How do we "choose" to be weak? By not joining in when Uncle Sam demands we kill brown people? By not bloating our military budget? October 1998, when UNSCOM inspectors were expelled due to to the prescence of CIA operatives in their number. MYour analogy would be more accurate if instea dof a six-pack, you had a 15 year old mini-bottle of Bailey's. Would you still be in violation of the letter of the law? Yes. However, would you be considered a threat? Probably not.

No argument from me, whatsoever. But would you have killed Adolf Hitler in 1935 if you could have?. The more relevant question, I believe, is: "If you had the chance to have killed Hitler in 1935, would you even if such action would result in a dozen random innocents also perishing?" What about dying while shopping? Or while rubbernecking a car accident (much like what happened last week when 10 Iraqis and a journalist watching a destroyed APC burn were killed by an Apache helicopter strike). There's a simple reason for this: most Iraqi militant groups are not affiliated with OBL. Wahabbism is a Sunni Muslim sect. The majority of Iraqis (60 per cent) are Shiite Muslims.

Martin is a centerist with a tilt to the right. Ditto Clinton. Bush is further down the right end of spectrum, largely due to his social stances and militaristic approach to foreign policy. As for extreme right wingers, I think Lyndon Larouche and Ann Coulter fit that bill. There already is one. It's called CanWest Global. That said, there's nothing preventing anyone from starting such a network. The argument in question is that which claims criticism of Israeli (to use the most common example) policy is a form of anti-Semetism. It's fallacious because states (as represented by national governments) are not a race or ethnicity, even if the members of said government or the populace they represent are of a particular ethno-religious character. Basically, crticism of national policy can be racially motivated, but is not racially motivated necessarliy. Is this a reciprocal agreement, then? After all, the U.S. relies quite heavily on Canada for imports. Does the fact that the eastern seaboard draws much of its electrical power from Canada give us the right to dictate U.S. policy? Of course not: your position is rubbish. It is the kind of thinking employed by Mob protection rackets: we'll look out for you, but you must do what we say. Canada and the U.S. are neighbours and trading partners: Canada is not, and should not be, a vassal state. Absolutely. Through the program of UN weapons inspections starting in 1998, Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability had been verifiably eliminated. Kay's post-war report concluded Iraq had no significant weapons of mass destruction nor any effective programs to develop them in the months leading up to the invasion.

The comparison cuts both ways. The Right in the States hated Clinton as much, if not more, than the left today hates Bush. Can you offer any evidence that any of the insurgents are involved with Al Qaeda? How many Al Qaeda members are there? How many cells? Where are they based? And I can't help but point out again that most of "our" predictions have been born out by events. As to th e"long drawn out war", would that be the one that Bush has admitted cannot be won? Bush was indeed honourably discharged. However, far from being a mark of exemplar service, the honorable discharge is better thought of as a standard severance, something every soldier receives unless there's significant evidence of misconduct and a commanding officer eager to brave the paperwork, panels, and disciplinary hearings required to send the soldier home with anything less. Like any number of other officers, Bush could have ducked out of his service for months and still received an honorable discharge. To demonstrate that the honourable discharge is the lowest common demoninator release from service, consider John Allen Muhammad, convicted last November for his participation in the D.C. sniper shootings, served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978-1985, where he faced two summary courts-martial. In 1983, he was charged with striking an officer, stealing a tape measure, and going AWOL. Sentenced to seven days in the brig, he received an honorable discharge in 1985.

This is a lie. Probably pointing out that based on US support towards Israel, they could be one in the same? This is an all-too common line of argument, the primary purpose of which is to dicredit opponents of national policies. However, it's a fallacious argument, for one can critcize national policy without being tainted by racism. Always and in perpetuity? Where they goes, we goes. I shudder to think... Irrelevant to the question of the legality of the Iraq invasion.

The Good Lord's track record for stopping acts of inhumanity is, frankly, abominable.

Does that make the innocents killed by gunshot slightly less dead? More moral reletavism. Is it difficult to accept that killing is fundamentally wrong? Is that so hard? Why are some innocent deaths deemed acceptable and others horrific?

Clinton's not in power, and many (particularily leftists)oppossed the human rights violations committed during his administration, the Kosovo bombing and his attack on Sudan being two such examples. So that dog doesn't bark. Izzat so? How do you know? Have you spoken to them? Your making some pretty enormous assumptions here. Yeah, he's done a great job too. And Afghanistan, outside Kabul, remains largely lawless and in the hands of regional warlords and ex Taliban militias. You should look at the headlines "the war" is still on. Bombs silent, but children still suffer Slow progress for Iraq reconstruction I would say the "Left's" accuracy when it come sto predictions vis a vis Iraq and the terror war have been consistently more accurate than the right's often rose-coloured outlook. Makes one wonder about the vaunted "realism" of the right. Interesting background on the Sudan crisis. Tread softly in Sudan

Thick as ever, eh? By your logic, then, you stand next to the "with us/against us" crowd. You claim to hate Bush, yet share his narrow worldview. You will brook no dissent from your orthodoxy. I've asked you questions and raised points which you have ignored. Your position is untenable and your refusal to engage in any actual discussion on the matter makes that fact all the more apparent. It's clear you have no interest in discourse, only sloganeering. There is an abundance of natural gas. There's also the matter of strategic proximity to other oil-rich central Asian republics. Oil and control of the oil supply is not the primary reason, but it is a key factor. Spurious nonsense. Your feeble attempts at race baiting is made all the more moronic by the fact that I am of Slavic descent. I guess the simple notion of cause and effect (as articulated in plain languiage by one of the hostage takers in Beslan: "You killed our children, so we've come to kill yours.") is to much for you to handle.

I'm sorry, but a pie in the face is not a reasonable or intelligent form of political commentary. All this guy did was make himself look like an ass and damage the credibility of his position. Yahoos like this give leftists a bad name.

Ahem. Speaking of Iraq (not that anyone was), there's talk that a quick exit is likely for the U.S.

I made teh differnce quite clear, stupid. If there's an application being considered, then it's not banned, now is it? In any case, that would be the same application mentioned in the original indy media article: So, you've yet to actually debunk a single thing in the original article. That's a pretty poor batting average. Hey, don't the fact that they discarded any pretense of socialism on assuming power stop your ravings, stupid. Nevermind that the governments of both countries bore little resemblance to any envisioned by socialists. You'd not find any socialists who'd argue that Stalin was socialist either. See, a key distinction that thinking people can make is to recognize the difference between socialism in doctrine versus socialism in practice. Fascism borrowed fromsocialst rhetoric of the day, but in practice, bore no resemblance to socialism. BTW, Nazi Germany didn't actually have any state owned industries other than the railroads. Reeses von Pieces strikes out.

Well, finally a citation. And it only took three tries. Now, what's your point? That graphic images of people plunging to their deaths would help Bush, but photos of flag-draped coffins would hurt him? Once again, however, your logic is faulty in that you assume your conclusion is the only valid one. In other words: the only explanation, in your view, for the refusal to show images of people dying, is because of political bias. Occam's Razor, would simply state that no news outlet would show any such material. Again: there's no political bias at work only good taste and decency (you may have to look those words up). Irrelevant to the point, which was that Salman Pak, if it were in actuality a terrorist base, would have been declared such in no uncertain terms. However, there's no evidence to indicate it was used in connection with 9-11 and official statements have reflected as much. Uh...you pulled that out of nowhere. Of course, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. In simple terms, a quagmire is a state of affairs wherein the U.S. cannot achieve its objectives, but cannot withdraw. They're stuck. (See the excellent opening post to "Why Iraq will never be a democracy" on this board.) What cities did the U.S. "clean out"? The insurgency is still active and is growing.

Actually I have. Can West global owns the license to broadcast Fox News. Therefore, it is not, as you and old man Worthington state "banned": they just have chosen (for whatever reason) not to launch it. Of course since you can't argue with the content attack the source. Dumb. If you had actually read the article (and I know there were a lot of big wordas in there), you'd see that no cable and/or satellite companies have even applied to import Fox News here. No, you're still an idiot "son". The problem with your hypothesis is that it makes assumptions about the socialism and the contemprary left that are not actually grounded in reality or logic and are coloured by your own biases. Only a total doctrinaire would acdept your premise. Throughout its rise to power and rule, the Nazis were strongly opposed by left-wing and socialist parties, and Nazi rhetoric was virulently anti-Marxist, attacking both communists and social democrats. Established socialist movements did not view the Nazis as socialists and argued that the Nazis were thinly disguised reactionaries. Historians such as Ian Kershaw also note the links between the Nazis and the German political and economic establishment and the significance of the Night of the Long Knives in which Hitler purged what were seen as "leftist" elements in the Nazi Party and how this was done at the urging of the military and conservatives. Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class conflict and opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers should control the means of production. For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialist progress, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National Socialism" as non-socialist. Nazis proposed that only people who were considered "racially pure" or Aryan would benefit from their policies. This is contrary to the socialist notion of a society for the benefit of all. In his rise to power, Hitler reassured German industrialists that he would respect private property and fight labor unions. Once in power, the Nazis jettisoned practically all of the socialistic aspects of their program, and worked with big business, frequently at the expense of both small business and the working classes. Independent trade unions were outlawed, as were strikes. In place of the unions, the Nazis created the Deutsche Arbeitsfront. The Nazis took other symbolic steps to co-opt the working classes' support, such as the introduction of May Day as a national holiday in 1933. These were described by socialists as superficial moves designed to win the allegiance of workers rather than grant them any material concessions at the expense of capital. Industries and trusts were not nationalised, with the exception of private rail lines (nationalised in the late 1930s to meet military contingencies). The only private holdings that were expropriated were those belonging to Jews. These holdings were then sold or awarded to businessmen who supported the Nazis and satisifed their ethnic and racial policies. Military production and even film production remained in the hands of private industries whilst serving the Nazi government, and many private companies flourished during the Nazi period. The Nazis never interfered with the profits made by such large German firms as Krupp, Siemens AG, and IG Farben. Efforts were made to coordinate business's actions with the needs of the state, particularly with regard to rearmament, and the Nazis established some state owned concerns such as Volkswagen. But these were functions of the new German expansionism rather than an implementation of socialist measures. Germany had moved to a war economy, and similar measures occurred in the western democracies during the first World War, and again once the second World War had begun. He outlawed labor unions and guaranteed corporate profits for Krupp & Co. The profits of large corporations soared under the Nazis. Militarism was also a strong element of facist policy. Ultimately, Hitler and Mussolini was interested in absolute power and are thus correctly classified as fascists. But feel free to dredge up some more crap from the depths of the internet.

I find it telling you never attack the substance of any of the articles you ooppose. Why? It's basic phsycholgy: people don't seek out views that are contrary to ones they hold and will resist any informatiion that challenges them, even if it entails irrational dissmissal. This is especially true in the case of doctrinaires like Mr. Burns, who wil structure their arguments around idealogically based presuppositions (ie. "the media has a liberal bias", "Reagan brought down the Soviet Union") and run from there. Does he challenge Alterman's methodology? Does he dispute how he came to the conclusions in his book? No. Because the opinion expressed does not jive with teh accepted orthodoxy, it is immediately dismissed. For these individuals doesn't matter whether their beliefs are substansially incorrect: they believe them to be correct, which is enough. It's an almost religious faith: the Gospel according to Rush, perhaps? If nothing else, it's an interesting look into the human psyche.

Like who? Citations? No I just chose to write off your screed for what it was: delusional ramblings. Given the credence given to the dubious WMD claims trumpeted as the causus belli before the war, I would expect that any "evidence" of a Iraq link to 9-11 would be expolited fully. WTF? This is appropos of nothing. bUSH REJECTS sADDAM 9-11 LINK Then you don't really have any argument. Given the quagmire-like state of affairs, it seems Sy Hersh made the right call. I don't think you understand what a quagmire is. Why We Can't Win Er,...no. In the last election, Zogby's was the most accurate polling firm.

Who was "demanding" to see the coffins? At least you're honest about your paranoid delusions. Oh yes, I'm sure. "Well, Mr. president, we have evidence that concretely connects Iraq with the 9-11 attacks. This evidence would solidify your popularity and demonstrate that attacking Iraq was justified in the context of the war on terror. However, due to that gosh-darned liberal media, we shouldn't ever relesase this evidence and, in fact, should mak epublic statements denying any connection between Saddam and Al Q'aeda." The article I linked to showed that U.S. intelligence was aware of what wa shapppening at Salman Pak and it had nothing to do with terrorism and 9-11. Attack the substance, not the source. Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter. You are a nobody on a chat board. Who has more credibility? That would be the same quagmire that the U.S. is currently mired in yes? In the 2000 welection, Gore led Bush by double digits as little as a week before election day. Zogby's (which is regared as one of the most acurate pollsters) has a 3 point spread between the two in their latest poll. Most others have a spread of five points or less. Gallup's 14 point Bush lead is so out of step with the rest, I would question it's veracity.

I've already shown that is a lie. But again, the facts aren't going to stop right-wing nuts like you and Peter Worthington from spewing your baseless drivel. I mean really: the Sun as a credible, unbiased source? Pathetic. Well, stupid, we have American network content. We have Canadian stations that carry American content. It's not a question of political ideology, but of how much U.S. content is on our airwaves. [rightwinglogic]Well, it's easy for you given that right wingers love skull-fucking dead Arab babies and wants to put all brown non-Christian people into concentration camps.[/rightwinglogic] Gee, why argue with facts when I can use straw men and ad hominem distortions. Thanks Mr. Burns! Yeah, which is why he sent trade unionists, Communists and other socialists to the gas chambers. Indeed, fascism was a wildly popular ideaology in the 30's due to the threat of socialism to the existing capitalist order. That's why industrialists like Hnery Ford were such ardent supporters of Hitler. You are a complete idiot if you think Hitler and Mussolini were socialists. Mussolini himself defined fascism as corporatism: the merging of state and corporate power.

They refused to show people plummeting to their deaths because it's bad taste. Imagine ho wyou'd feel if you were watching TV and bore witness to one of your loved one's last horrifying moments? It has nothing to do with politics. Liberal dominated media? Jesus. That certainly doesn't jibe with official statements from the U.S. administration. Common sense would indicate that if tehre were any hard evidence of an Iraq connection to 9-11, Bush et al would be trumpeting it from teh roof tops and on every corner. Selective Intelligence Yet the race is still more or less a dead heat. How about that.