Black Dog

You know KK, on matters of "what is torture" I'll defer to the definition set down by international law and confirmed by the Red Cross (again "practices tantamount to torture") than to your half-baked atempts to downplay U.S. actions (In my book, beatings, rape, murder-all documented behaviors at Abu Ghirab and Gitmo- are far more serious than your constant refrain of "wearing women's underwear" would indicate). Heck, for bonus "torture apologist" points, you managed to invoke the "ticking time bomb scenario" to justify torture, despite the fact such scenarios are, at best, far-fetched. Finally, even if we were to accept, for a second, that torture can be justified under certain circumstances, the simple fact remains that torture methods fail to produce reliable information. I was wrong when I said people like you couldn't see the rot infecting your nation. You're actually part of it.

To people who support a viable system of social services, equality, peace, the seperation of church and state, economic policies that benefit the majority of Canadians, independant foreign policy, a clean environment and so on, the Conservatives are dangerous. You don't need to trot out bogus "subliminal messages" to show that.

You FDers know subliminal mesages don't work, right? So sayeth Snopes.

That's why bias becomes so dangerous: when people pay little attention to public issues, they're much more likely to base their decison on a sound bite or headline. Which would explain why the Cons, who've coasted along in a media love-in have polled so well. By the way, tonerguy, who's behind that web site? I smell a Heritage Front rat...

No. During war there are certain standards of conduct that are to be observed, standards that, in this case, were agreed upon by the U.S. military and subsequently (and systematically) violated by using what the Red Cross called "practices tantamount to torture". Now, you may be willing to whitewash all the sins away by saying "bad things happen in war", but the fact is these occurances were beyond the standard of acceptable combat in war time. You may wish to justift it further by shiftying attention elsewhere, but the fact remains: these violations were given the green light by senior officials and were part of a systematic campaign of abuse that stretched from Afghanistan, to Iraq and to Cuba. So, you can take a look at the evidence of high-level knowledge of the torture, from Rumsfeld to Ashcroft and possibly to Bush, the fact techniques used in Iraq are being used in Afghanistan and Gitmo and still swallow the tripe about "a few bad apples" and regurgitate it without batting an eye? Incredible. I don't know how you do it. And it just keeps coming. Take a look at the memo posted by o.i.c. above. Or read the article from the WSJ. Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture This is seriously scary stuff. It seems the Bushites are trying to set up a kind of a authoritarian State with power emanating from the leader at the top and unencumbered by checks from other branches of government or, the people. But folks like KK won't (or can't) see the rot that is infecting the American republic. To them, the word of the U.S. government is on par with the word of God: America's motives are unquestionably pure (save for a few "mistakes"), any deviance from the orthodoxy is "anti-Americanism".

Bump! Terrorism report wrong. Report "big mistake": Powell

That's bull. There's information out there, but not everyone has access to it. For instance, conrast the low rates of teen pregnancy, STDs and abortions in Europe, where comprehensive sex ed is the norm, with the rates in North America (espcially the USA, where abstinence-only sex ed dominates). MEN SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PRACTICE SAFE SEX AND PREVENT UNPLANNED PREGNANCIES. Let me put it another way: where do women wear condoms? It's one thing to hold people accountable. But the idea of making women pay men money for children they won't have is a punitive measure by any standard. Your first sentence should read: "Do you call it punishment when men have no choice in whether or not the woman has a child..." It's not punishment, it's acknowledging, again, the women's right to control her own reproductive and sexual fate. Do men sometimes lose out? Yes. But that's the price we have to pay. The alternative is forcing women to have children against their will (a revolting concept in a free society). I wasn't talking about pregnant people , I was, in the context of the discussion, talking about single parent. And yeah, I consider people who are pilloried and victimized by society for mistakes or for exercising their individual rights to be less fortunate. So what, you think kids know the consequenses and are simply choosing pregnancy and STDS? C'mon, man! The problem is this: we have a society where the media and popular culture glorify sex, and a political and educational culture that tries to mystify and vilify it (the SuperBowl boob furor being aprime example of North America's thouroughly puritan attitudes towards sex). Kids are exposed to both and, consequentially, are confused by the conflicting messages. Basically, I think pregnancy and the decision to see a pregnancy to term or not has a far greater impact on women than men, which is why, when the women's right to choose clashes with a man's wishes, we defer to the women. I understand the unfairness of forcing men to pay for children they do not want, but I don't see any practical way to address that (barring giving men uteruses). I can kinda see giving men the option to choose not to be a father by relinquishing custodial rights, within a specified time frame of discovering the pregnancy, if he does not want the child and the mother chooses to keep the baby. But that doesn't take th eneeds of the child into account (then again, I wouldn't agree with someone who opted to have a child they could not support). But I thinking the idea of making women pay is, as I said, ridiculous.

Just to recap, here's your earlier post: You're not basing your conclusion on any actual facts, but are speculating based on assumption and a single, 25 year old, case. Abortion and breast cancer Most recently, in May 2003, the National Cancer Institute concluded that earlier studies that had suggested a connection between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer were flawed. The newest, most scientifically reliable studies have consistently showed no association between abortion and breast cancer risk. Oh yes, because the same people who oppose choice are also at the forefront of enhanced sex ed programs, right? I'd like to see some actual solid evidence of early-stage abortion drugs like RU486 being marketed as birth control. What exactly does the increased incidence of child abuse have to do with abortion? Straw man. First: you're theory requires that I bel;eive abortion is murder. It is not. What I do beleive is that unwanted children are often uncared-for, unloved, , or confined to lives of, yes, poverty or abandonment. This is not good for children, for families, or for the country. The abortion issue is another example of the rank hypocrisy of the right-wing. The right-wing would call for limitations or a ban on abortions, but oppose sexual education programs that would reduce unwanted pregnancies, especially among young people. As well, the right wing agenda trends to focus on characterizations of "single mothers on welfare" as symbols and causes of society's failures, which bolsters the right's agenda of cuts to social programs that help the underpriviledged. Bottom line: while many anti-abortion types certainly have real, moral misgivings about the issue, much of the anti-abortion agenda is driven by those who would deny women control of their reproductive destiny as a means of maintaining and excrabating social and economic inequalities and reinforcing the entrenched hierarchy.

There's no way you could "rid us of abortion death". Less than one in 100 abortions results in serious complications, and less than one in 100,000 abortions have complications that result in death. Many counselling centre are also known to utilize tactics such as offering free pregnancy tests but giving ambiguous answers about the results, showing shocking and deceptive films or slide shows, attempting to induce guilt by engaging women in discussions about their religious views and beliefs, refusing or failing to provide contraceptive information, and making exaggerated promises of financial assistance. It's a given that if abortion is legal and, therefore, easier to obtain, the numbers would increase from when it was illegal and less accessable. Since the U.S. mortality rate for pregnancy is 7.5 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live-births (CDC, 1999). The current death rate from abortion at all stages of gestation is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. Therefore, abortion is statistically safer than carrying a child to term. I don't have time to check out all your medical claims, but this is one persistant myth that I can address . I'm not the one who brought up the financial costs of abortion. Again: an increase in the number of abortions following legalisation is entirely logical. As to the 72 per cent who would not have had abortions, we'd instead have a 72 per cent increase in unwanted children and the accompanying ill effects.

Hey you know what a good way to reduce the number of single-parent homes? Easy access to abortion and contraceptive information, thing is right now there's no such things. As for society punishing individuals for choices by witholding support, well, I think a dog-eat-dog society like that is not worth living in. I also find it sad how quickly people turn on the less fortunate members of society and blame them for many ills. Like you've never made bad choices? Contrary to what you might think, it's not that easy. Look at the States, where sex ed is predominately faith-based, with a focus on abstinence, which fails to give kids the knowledge they need. Meanwhile the media is full of conflicting messages and false information on sexuality, making it hard for kids to get an education. So I don't think the right information is getting out. I don't think it should be. If a man gets a woman pregnant, the child is his responsibility too, whether he wanted it or not. If a woman chooses to end the pregnancy, what is the man responisble for? No rights exist without responsibility. The idea of punishing women for making reproductive choices is not creating a level playing field. I don't understand how you could justify making women pay for children they didn't or won't have. It's ridiculous. There's good reasons women have the ultimate say in whether or not to have kids. First, it's their body and no man should be able to dictate what she does with it. As well, women are the ones who have to carry the kids and raise them: so yeah, I think they should get more say. As for the rest, ae you saying men have no choice in contraception or abstinence? Men have choices and responsibility fo rpreventing unwanted pregnancies too. You are correct. Fetuses are living organisms, in much the same way as single cells are living organisms. Your link is full of errors, such as the contention that a fetus canfeel pain at 12 weeks. At 12 weeks, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development. The beginnings of the brain stem, which includes a rudimentary thalamus and spinal cord, is being formed. Most brain cells are not developed. Without a cerebral cortex (gray matter covering the brain), pain impulses cannot be received or perceived. No, much of the "screaming" is because of the profusion of anti-abortion "counselling centres". You should try carrrying a child for 9 months, since you figure its such a piece of cake. Abortions will still happen, legal or not. Legal abortion safeguards women's health and safety. In Alberta, at least, vasectomy's are covered by health care. That should be up to the individual, not the state, to seek counselling. I'd be willing to bet that the costs of abortion pales in comparison to the costs society would incur if abortions were not legal. If abortions weren't publically funded, it would drive women, especially those with low-incomes, to dangerous self-induced or back-alley abortions, while wealthier ones can travel wherever necessary to obtain a safe abortion. So abortions do save lives. By your numbers, illegal abortions, cost thousands of lives. If abortion had not been legalised in 1973, as of 2004, 5,250 women would have died as a result of obtaining abortions, versus about 525 deaths from the legal variety. And when is that? Is it the instant the sperm fertilizes the egg? When the fertilized ovum implanted on the uterine wall? At what magic point does a single cell becoem a full-blown human life, complete with all inherent rights?

There's no scientific consensus as to whether or not a fetus is considered a living organism, so to call a unborn fetus a "child" is misleading. Indeed, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, almost all abortions - 98.6 percent -occur during the first half of pregnancy. Most (88 percent) take place during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Half of all abortions occur within the first eight weeks, during stages where the fetus is nothing but an undeveloped lump of tissue. Oh really? Can you cite me some examples, either from the media or personal experience? I suspect this is just one of those things that get repeated so often that it becomes conventional wisdom. I've known women who've had abortions. It's not an experience any of them treat casually or would want to go through again. It is true that we can reduce the number of abortions by insuring that everyone has all the reproductive health services and information they need, so that they can access and use contraception consistently and correctly. Don't forget, though, that many groups and individuals that oppose the right to choose abortion are also working to reduce the availability of contraception and sexuality education (like George W. Bush signing the first federal abortion ban while pumping money into wrongheaded absetinence only sex education programs). So I trust you support government funded comprehensive sex education programs that discuss all aspects of sexual health, and all reproductive options, including abstinence, contraception, abortion, adoption, and childbirth starting at the elementary school level? How about a national day care program so that single parents can find work to support their kids and stay off the welfare rolls? I find it interesting that you want women who get abortions to pay, while men who duck their responsibilites should be shielded by law. Also, the idea that "women should pay for their actions" not only reeks of misogyny, but also of a twisted world where society punishes those for their mistakes and choices (even if those choices are within the boundaries of legally acceptable behavior). What's that about? If a man doesn't want a kid, he should consider that before sleeping with someone. If he does, he should probably discuss it with the woman (seeing as how she, you know, would carry the thing for 9 months, as well as being the primary caretaker).

How much say a man has depends on the individual relationships. However, it's the woman's body and, ultimately, her choice. You have to realize where the right to choose fits in the broader context of women's rights. Reproductive freedom is fundamental to women's aspirations for education, financial stability and independance, and self-determination. As Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun said: "...Millions of women, and their families, have ordered their lives around the right to reproductive choice, and that this right has become vital to the full participation of women in the economic and political walks of American life." —

Because democracy, by definition, demands respect for human dignity and rights.Because comparing the actions of Israel (a country who's abuses and crimes are facilitated and given tacit approval by the west: that is to say, us) to those of countries like Syria is misleading, as it downplays the significance of abuses and crimes committed by Israel. It becomes a shell game ("Hey look over there! Those guys are worse!") or a comparasin ("Sure , Israel's bad, but they're better than the two bit thugocracy next door.") which doesn't do their cause any favours. After all, I would hope a nation as advanced as Israel, with a stated commitment to liberal democratic values, would at least measure up to the standards of a place like Syria.I guess the question to ask is: are war crimes and crimes against humanity to be tolerated because it's one of "our guys" that's committing them? Because Israel is a self-styled democracy allied with western interests, we should look away? In a perfect world, of course, there would be zero tolerance for any abuse of human rights. However, in Israel's case, such abuses are enabled by our own national governments, which is a cause for concern. Western governments need to stop tolerating human rights violations wherever they occur. And they should certainly stop enabling them. No kidding, seeing as how I linked to the Media Release sections of the web sites. I wasn't trying to make a comment on anything but the notion that: The pages I linked to indicate that Syria does get attention from human rights organizations.

How would a drug with no proven negative long-term effects damage our health care system?

Amnesty International: Syria Human Rights Watch: Syria I think the notion that Israel receives a disproportinate amount of attention from human rights campaigners is a canard. Israel does receieve more attention in the media, howver, for reasons I'm not entirely sure of. I maintain, however, that a democratic nation of the kind Israel claims to be, should be held to a higher standard than a dictatorship like Syria. Palestinians deaths outstrip Israeli deaths by a 3 to 1 ratio. There's a solution: end the military occupation and create a single, secular, egalitarian, democracy for Jews and Palestinians. You're a intelligent guy, Argus: surely you can see how one could lead to the other. The difference is negligible. If you fire a gun into a crowd of people, you can reasonably expect to hit someone and would be considered responsible for any harm caused, as surely as if you were aiming at a specific target , but hit someone else instead. Similarily, if a helicopter fires high-explosive rockets into a apartment building or at a mosque afte rmorning prayers, there's a reasonable expectation that people other than the intended target will come to harm. Therefore, the people who fired teh rockets (and those who gave the orders to do so) are responsible for harm that comes to any innocent bystanders. They've fired tank shells and missiles into crowds of demonstrators. Is that close enough? But this isn't a discussion that belongs here. if anyone wants to continue this in International politics, I'm game.

Can you back this up with a source? What a load. Ever heard the schoolyard phrase that starts with "Sticks and stones..."?

I was racking my memory trying to find out where you got the quote "during the 20th century". Then I see it was from the IMF report I linked to earlier. You're mis-attributing statements to me that I did not make, but came from sources I merely offered up for information. So, I haven't changed my argument at all. You just don't know how to read. As for colonialism, the first person to mentuon it was you, who pulled the "globalisation=colonialism" argument from thin air, then claimed I said it. Since it's becoming clear that you will stoop to any depth to avoid acknowledging any of my points (including fabricating statements I did no make) or discussing the actual substance of the issues at hand (you're argument thus far has consisted mostly of weasely attempts to catch me in rhetorical traps of your own creation) I don't see the point in continuing.

You're not just out of it: you'd make a great Gestapo recruit. Totally irrelevant. You're right inasmuch it's a "war". But you forget you're supposed to be liberating the people, not abusing them. Again: the bulk of the detainees were innocent of any wrongdoing. Well, KK, I'll tell you what: since the abuse is no big deal to you, how about you volunteer to show us by allowing us drag you from your house at gunpoint, stick a broomstick up your ass, kick the crap out of you, sic dogs on you, point a loaded gun at your head, force you to perform simulated sex acts on other men. No biggy, right?

Read on: (emphasis mine) The crimes were committed by the government to aid the foreign oil companies' work. So yeah, that makes them complicit in the regime's crimes. Gee and it only took mass civil disobedience in the face of violent opposition by government forces for them to do it! The system works! No, oh-pedantic one. You claimed I said: "globalisation is the same as colonialism", which I never did. It's not my fault you're incabable of non-linear thought. Now whose backpedalling? You originally alleged the Salman Pak was evidence that Saddam "sponsored terrorism" (that is to say, Saddam, in some way, enabled groups or organizations to engage in terrorist activities during his reign). Now you're changing your argument to indicate that since, groups or organizations currently designated as "terrorists" trained at Salman Pak, ipso facto it's a terrorist training facility. Holy crap. Apparently, one has to spell everything out for you in big block letters, using short, simple terms. Here it is: in nice, simple terms for Hugo: -Iraq had an active chemical-bio weapons program prior to the first Gulf War. -Following the war and subsequent inspections, 90-95 per cent of Iraq's WMD production capability was destroyed. - There's no evidence to indicate Iraq had an active WMD program at the time of the 2003 invasion. -What was found was, primarily, documents that would enable Iraq to reconstitute, at a future date, WMD capability, provided it had the time, resources, infrastructure and freedom from scrutiny to do so. As to your "evidence" of Iraq hiding weapons in Syria: further exploration indicates a fair amount of division on the matter: some say it happened, while, apparently, officials at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) swept the allegations aside as lacking credibility. So the jury is still out.

My arguments are "repititious" because certain parties are too thick to acknowledge them. Enjoy your orgy of self-congratulation.

Bullshit. The reason Isreal recieves attention is because it is a self-styled democracy and western ally that is enacting policies reminiscint of a third-world banana republic, and on a large scale. Failure to live up to the basic requirements of a civilized, democratic nations is worth some attention, no? Opposition to Israeli policies is not, in and of itself, anti-Semitism. (Edited to add) Malcom Azania has explained and apologized for his remarks (which were made some 9 years ago in an internet chat room). Statement. But if we're digging up skeletons, how about Con candidate James Moore posting anti-gay jokes on UseNet around the same time?

What's wrong with the WTO. Oil companies complicit in human rights abuses in Sudan. Bolivia's water war Business rules. Never said that. Corporate driven globalization, as promoted by western governments and bodies like the WTO, shares many of the same goals and practices as colonialism. What's the amtter with you that you continue to blur the facts and mis-represent my arguments to bolster your own? The Feyadeen were the Iraqi military's special forces, not "terrorist forces". An the defectors? They were working for Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC). ANd we know how reliable thei rintelligence has been. As for Salman Pak's use as a bioweapons research facility, this was uncovered in 1992 by UNSCOM inspections. No actual bioweapons were found to have been produced, and the facility was bombed several times, both during Desert Fox and the recent war. Again: if Salman Pak was what you say it was, why didn't the administration make more of it? What happened to WMD? Very convincing. Armchair Provocateur So much "circumstantial evidence and multiple and independent eyewitness accounts" and you can't even bother with a link? The word "looking" is pretty open to interpretation. If you want to avoid being misinterpreted, then use more precise language. Pot, kettle, black.

As usual, nuance and critical thinking are lost on you. Your defense of globalization vis a vis cololialism is "If X and Y aren't identical, they are completely different", despite the many similarities between the two. While globalization lacks the obviousness of colonialism, both involve economic domination of resources, labor, and often markets. The primary vehicle of colonialism, the nation-state, has been superseded in the globalized world by supranational corporations, which still rely on national governments to enforce the agenda of globalization, either tacitly through liberalized trade agreements, or, if necessary, by force (the recent western-backed coups (succesful and attempted) in Haiti and Venezuala are prime examples.) As to the business practices on the ground, commodity dumping, selective adherence to trade policies ("free trade" agreements erect trade barriers as often as they remove them) and costly and anti-competitive forms of protectionism (patents, copyrights and other monopolies grouped under "intellectual property rights") are hallmarks of globalization. Another striking similarity is the tendancy for defenders of both practices to legitimize or promote these systems, based on belief that the mores and practices of the powerful are superior to those of the undeveloped nations, and further, that the practices being imposed by the powerful are "for their own good". Well, it was confirmed as a bio-weapons testing site and Feyadeen training facility. Anything else is, as I said, pure speculation. (Further, I see Laurie Myrolie is a big proponent of the Salman Pak/islamic terrorist connection. That alone is almost enough to convince me it's a lie, as Myrolie is a kook.) You're kidding, right? I went back over this entire thread and the only "evidence" you've posted was the single link to Salman Pak (which, again, if it was really the "smoking gun" connection you allege, would have been political gold for the Bush administration, which, curiously, did nothing with the "information"). So the "multiple, independant" sources you mention esxist purely in your mind. The rest is ad hominem. Upon further review, i was mistaken. My conversation with KK was in another thread, but here's what I told him: "Looking to get WMD" denotes and active, viable WMD program, which Iraq did not have. You're still wrong.

Pull your head out of Rush's arse, KK. If college initiations involved armed seizure and detention without due process, or riding 70 year -old women around like donkeys, you might be closer to being just mistaken. As it is, however, you're totally out of it. US Army report on abuse Keep in mind, too, that, by the Army's own admission, between 70 and 9o per cent of the detainees are innocent of any wrong-doing. Yet apologista like KK continue to excuse these heinous violations of human rights. Disgusting. Link.

Globalization: threat or opportunity. Of course, its natural for the IMF to conclude that what's needed is more of the economic policies that created the problems they cite and to duck blame for them. But they do acknowledge the fact taht a rising tide does not lift all boats. 1. How reliable are the witnesses? 2. You can't prove a negative. Anothe red herring. The old "oppossition to the war=support for Saddam" B.S. all over again. I don't need to trust Saddam to belive that he was disarmed, nor to question the claims that led to this conflict. Nice try, but if you look back, I stated (during my exchanges with KK) that I had no doubt Saddam, given the opportunity, pursued WMD development. "Wrong on all counts" was my response to the allegation that Saddam had active WMD programs, which is, at best, unproven.