Black Dog

How about the constant drumbeat that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage and open the door to institutionalized pedophilia? Just skim through a few of Alliance Fanatic's posts on the subject to get a feel for the vibe. I see black people on the streets, black magazines and Caribana parades celebrating black culture. That doesn't mean discrimination against blacks doesn't exist. Same goes for gayus. It's been a hard fight for homosexuals to get to where they are today. There's still a long ways to go. I don't think comparisons between nations' military spending countries are invalid. But i don't think it should make a difference. We need a military that's big enough to do the job we want it to do. However, that organizational focus is lacking. Figuring out what we want our military to be able to do should be a top priority. Bigger isn't always better.

KK, re-read my post that cited articles on the turmoil over the presidency and prime minister. There's a clear distinction between the two positions. I certainlly didn't expect things to go the way they did. Anyway, the U.S. didn't relinquish control, it was taken from them. There's a clear gap between the U.S.'s intentions in Iraq and the way things are panning out. As it stands, they U.S. is very weak. As a result, the US has not been in a position to dictate the political appointments. However, the new government, which still is stocked heavily with U.S apointees and former exiles, doesn't have much legitimacy. Juan Cole, teh Middle East scholar who's doing great work on the political developments in Iraq,has said the new government will inevitably be seen as an American imposition, especially since it will be unable to enforce its authority without the U.S.

But why are costs escalating? Much of the blame is being pinned on the public system when, in truth, health crae costs are rising across the industrialized world. An aging population, expensive new technologies, infrastructure and perscription drug costs play a role. There's certainly nothing to indicate that that Medicare is inherently unsustainable. As for how much provinces are spending, there's been little real change in the the amount provinces are spending on health care as a percentage of GDP over the past decade. So we need to modernize ou rmilitary, bring it up to snuff. But why is it necessary to double its sixe? The public seems evenly split on same sex marriage, but I expect much of that is due to the incessant fear -mongering from its opponnents. But look at the Cons' views on abortion. Harper claims its a non-issue, but scratch the surface (like his health critics comments yesterday) and you see a decidely anti-abortion stance, despite the fact that more than 70 per cent of Canadians suppport a women's right to choose. We're probably not going to go there, but knowing the influence religious social conservatives have on the Cons is enough to give me pause. So its purely ego-drive, then? Trade has little to do with "being a player" and more to do with what we have to offer. The ability to project military might and a strong economy are not connected. Look at some of the big economic success stories of the past decades (Ireland, for instance) how many are chatracterized by a large armed forces? Remember what I said about "U.S. proxy force"? That's what this boils down to. If that had been a consideration, we'd be mired in Iraq right now. No, the U.S. can manage its military afffairs without us. We should focus on defending our borders and oceans from incursion. We don't now? Again, there's no argument here beyond the childish notion that in order to be significant we have to match toys with the big kids. We have a top-heavy, underpaid armed forces with poor equipment and a ill-defined role. Simply doubling the size of the forces won';t address the main problems.

Sure. But I find it curious that people who make a point of saying how some problems (like those in health care, for instance) cannot be fixed by throwing money at them. When it comes to the military, though, the Harpers of the world can't start shovelling out cash fast enough. To me, even if the money is there (and I still wanna know how Harper's tax cuts will help the bottom line) it's a question of priorities. Do we need a bigger military? I'd settle for a well-paid and well equipped force that can do the job of defending this countries borders and, if we so choose, to participate in global peacekeeping efforts. Not the bloated U.S. proxy force that Harper dreams of. People who talk of tax cuts as a good thing by definition are missing the point. Tax cuts for who? And how much? What about corporate taxes? Actually the Cons want a free vote on gay marriage, not a national referendum. However, we know where the Cons really stand on social issues (for example: Like the Tory health critic who wants new rules requiring women to obtain "third party counselling" before getting an abortion) and we know how those "free" votes would go. It's not about "activist courts" (even though, in the case of the recent gay marriage decision, the courts where well within the mandate given to them by Parliment to make decisions on the state of the law). It's about using the rhetoric of democracy to push policies that most people would find abhorrant.

As oppossed to your overwhelming evidence of...what? I guess there's no western involvement in third world economies. Alright, good start. What about him? Wrong on all counts. Selective credulity. Good, you can read an encyclopedia. But that wasn't the question. Let's go back. Japan had a parliament with a house of representatives whose members after 1925 were elected by universal manhood suffrage. The Japanese military usurped the parliament's role in the mid-1930s, crushing the fledgling democracy, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, Japan had established democratic institutions.

Look up the Washington Consensus. Ah yeas... the "la la la, I'm not listening " approach. Let's puit it this way: if it wasn't for third world resources, western dmocracies would have F.A. to trade with one another. Which one's specifically. Come on: I amawaiting to be dazzled by your knowledge of the personalities vying for power in Iraq. - Iraq's military was devestated by the first Gulf War. It's equipment was out of date, its personnel priomarily demoralized, underpaid cosncripts. None of Iraq's neighbour's viewed Saddam as a serious threat. -There's no evidence that Saddam was a sponsor of terror. Saddam rewarded families of suicide bombers, but that's not "sponsoring" terror. -Where are the WMD programs? Actually posing a viable military or economic threat would be a good starty. Saddam was neither, a bloated, broken and ostracized regime. Your last statement reminds me of the propaganda used during the early stages of the Cold War when we could expect a red tide of godless commies to sweep across north America, eating babies and raping our houspets. Hyperbole and scaremongering with no basis in the real world. Sarcasm missed. Citation? Look, don't take your ignorance of history out on me. Japan had a strong social democratic movement from 1912-1926 that only fell by the way side with the decline of the economy and the rise of militarism in Japanese society. Up until a few minutes ago, you didn't even acknowledge or know about the existence of Japan's democratic past, which doesn't exactly give your pronouncements on its legitimacy much weight.

Religion has given us teh Taliban and the Spanish Inquisition. We could do this all day. The point is, the government of a secular, pluralist society should reflect that nature by drawing from a variety of sources and not a single one, especially a religious-based one.

KK, stick your smugness where the sun don't shine. I'll wait and see how this story develops, but your three paragraph article hardly disproves a single thing I've said. The council's choice only happened because the U.S.'s pick declined the job. Also, the job of president is largely ceremonial. The prime minister's job is the one to watch. If anything, al-Yawar's apointment (or to be more precise: Pachachi's declineing of the position) shows the declining credibility of the Pentagon's faction in the U.S. administration. It also shows that Iraqis are capable of running their own show, even as the U.S. attampts to force their opicks down their throat (Bremner pushed the council to not vote on their pick in the first place).

You know exactly what I mean. But in case you aren't just pretending ti be obtuse, I mean a government that takes it's policy cues from the White House, not the Iraqi people. What mullahs? Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the influential cleric who's pushing for free elections? Al-Sadr? Who's your pick to be the new leader? Are you basing your predictioon of an Islamic theocracy on anything but a presupposition that that's the only way those Ay-rabs know? After all, I already pointe dout there is but one example of an Islamic theocracy in the region. The third world is the resource base for western trade. That's why the west subjects third world nations to the one-two punch of repressive regimes and IMF-backed economic "reforms" that open countries up to complete purchase by foreign corporations. We've seen it in the neoliberal economic program in South and Central America and we're seeing it in Iraq today. As I've said before, the 300,000 figure is deceptive, as it includes total deaths during teh Iran/Iraq war, when Saddam and our support. Which means the west is culpable in any of Saddam's pre-1991 atrocities (and many of his post Gulf War ones as well, as demonstrated by the west's inaction during the post-war rebellion). (By the way, where were your howls of outrage then? Where is your searing indictment of Rumsfeld, cheney, Regan, and all the other's who knowingly did business with the murderous Saddam?) However, if you look at some of the reasons given for ousting Saddam now, they included that he was an immediate (or potential) threat to Mid East security and stability. Containment assured he was not a threat tyo regional security. Or Bush. Do you have evidence of any of these practices? The 1996 PA elections were plagued with irregularities, but independent international observers reported the elections to have been free and fair. The fact remains that Arafat is the only democratically elected Arab leader in the region. You asked for an example: ther eyou have it. And your point is? Again: you said Japan had no prewar democratic institutions: it did. Q.E.D.

Noooo...it means basing laws on a religious text that not every citizen believes in is anathema to the democratic process. Not every citizen supports every decision made by the government, nor should they. However, the ide ao basing the law of the land on what I consider to be a fairy tale is very scary. Rather, the government should draw on the rich traditions of secular humanist thought, the same school that gave us this thing called "democracy" in the first place.

If you'd do a careful read of my posts, nowhere did I suggest the U.S. would install a Saddam-lite dictator. Certainly the "new" Iraq will bear the trappings of a democracy, but will be smeared with the fingerprints of the U.S.A. We're talking about creating democracy out of nothing. Name any countries where a functioning and legitimate democracy was imposed by military force. Indeed, occupiers have always cloaked their intentions in high-minded rhetoric of liberation and freedom. The Japanese "liberated" Manchuria, the U.S. itself also brought democracy to central America in the '80s, complete with massacres, torture, violence and destruction of the countries. What "democracies" they did construct were top-down democracies - with the traditional elites in power that have been connected to the U.S. It still baffles me that no one has any faith in the Iraqi people being able to come up with a soultion to their own problems. When you look at the current situation, much of the instability is a de facto product of the occupation: no occupation, no widespread insurgency. There's certainly no guarantee Iraq will fall into total ethno-religious anarchy. Yes, there will be violence, but no more, I expect, than there is now (especially since there's little chance of thinghs getting better in the short term). The Catch 22 is that the stated aims of the U.S. in Iraq (if one supposses they are legitimate) will not succeed so long as the U.S. remains in the country. They will always be the occupier and any government bearing their fingerprints will be viewed as a puppet. I can see that the U.S. is handcuffed. Who can forget the mass public outcry when the U.S. moved to take out Suharto, Pinochet, and all those other bids for bring democracy to the world that were foiled by protests from the left. Get your head out: supporting dictators is standard policy in western governments. It's about economics: its simply easier for western nations to do business with the thugs. Democratic countries tend to resist economic exploitation and policies geared towards a tiny segment of the population, therefore, for such policies to succed, "we" tend to favour iron-fisted rulers who can keep the population in check. Of course, you neglect to ask how the dictators acheived power in the first place. As for the UN "half-measures", they worked very well in containing Saddam and keeping his WMD aspirations in check for the past decade plus. There was no reason to think they could not have continued. There is one democtratically elected Arab leader: Yassar Arafat. However, there's also only one Islmaic theocracy: Iran. Most of the other Arab and Muslim nations are monarchies (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) or military dictatorships (like the western-backed regimes in Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria and Morocco). Yes it did. Japan was establishing democratic institutions in the '20s, during the period known as the "Taisho Democracy". The comparason between post-war Japan and Germany and prent-day Iraq is, at best, spurious.

Because not every citizen follows the Bible. Again, religious types don't have the monopoly on morality. Times change. Canada is now a multicultural, multitheistic society and the government must reflect that.

Now kids, quit fighting or I'm turning this thing around and there'll be no Disneyland for any of you. Anyway, to get back on track, Harper is planning a $5 billon boost to the Armed Forces over the next four years, while promising tax cuts at the same time. My question is: how can Harper and the Cons expect to increase spending while decreasing revenue and maintaining a balanced budget? If I peer into my neocon crystal ball, I see cuts to other programs and services to make up the difference.

So, none of these machinations are problematic to you? All will be swept clean by the new government (CPA-approved constitution and appointees intact)? I was right before: you have a child's faith. That's an interesting distortion, given the inverse can be said of you. The big differnce in this situation is the insurgency, a multi-faceted movement with a variety of factions and objectives doesn't seem to have a clear cut communications strategy. Whereas propaganda and disinformation are the heart of the U.S communications strategy (remember the carefully-constructed PR event that was the toppling of Saddam's statue?). As well, the U.S. is sticking with the official line that it was an insurgents camp.

Feud over presidency stalls Iraqi cabinet Former Exile Is Selected As Interim Iraqi Leader Meet the new boss. A man for all intrigues So it does indeed look like we will have a return of CIA-style sovereignty to Iraq, leading up to a Sunni-dominated government that represents a melding of the pre-Saddam Baath Party and the military dictatorship that preceded it, albeit with a new pro-USA flair.

Because it's a mistake to believe the toppling of Saddam's regime represents a shift in policy rather than a continuation of the same cycle that breeds such tyrants in the first place. Realpolitik is still the order of the day. Polls have consitently shown that Iraqis want the occupation to end. And let's not forget some other important facts: Iraq under Saddam as a stable, secular society with the most educated population in the region, largely due to the support his regime recieved from the west as a bulwark against revolutionary Islam. Do you see that happening? Despotic regimes happen to be the easiest kind for western countries to do business with. Nothing promotes a stable investment environment like an iron-fisted government with a cowed population. That's why we'll never see the U.S. go after Saudi Arabia, the biggest sponsor of terror and one of the worst human rights violaters tehre is: the ties that bind are strong. That said, I too believe the first step is to stop supporting these bastards in the first place. Oh? Based on what, exactly? Again: are you assuming that Islamic theocracies are the default form of governance in the region? France Germany et all are flawed comparisons as all were industrialized nations with some established democratic institutions. Why not look at Iran, where the U.S ousted a democratic government for the Shah, or the oft-repeated example of Chile? By "current events" you mean the wrangling between the Council and the Coalition over the Iraqi president, it's interesting to note that this deadlock is over a dispute over the new president stems from the U.S wanting a leader who will abide by the interim constitution, a docyument that severly handcuffs the soverignty of the new Iraq. Ah you obvioulsy missed the point about the U.S. using political and economic leverage to push for reforms. But then those women-hating Ay-rabs probably only respond to force, right? Like you said, a caricature. The U.S. to me is more of a self-important bully, prone to high-minded rhetoric and very ugly actions. No different than any other dominant nation throughout history, but not the pure force for good its apologists see it as. "Anti-US garbage"? It's now "antiAmerican" to step away from the preconceptions that the U.S. is inherently good, to acknowledge self-interest, greed and the desire for continued power as the drivers of a nationalist foreign policy? Uh..no evidence? Eyewitnesses? Video footage? But I giuess we're just suppossed to swallow everything Senor and Kimmit say. After all, they wouldn't have any reason to cover up such an incident (which resembles a similar attack on an Afghan wedding party in 2002). There's no enquiry coming, because that would entail acknowledging the possibility that the U.S. err'd. History and past behavior have given me to reason to believe it. A basic rule of war is that, if possible, you don't attack anybody who can defend themselves. Iraq, with an undermanned, undergunned conscript army shattered after two devestating wars and 12 years of seige, was not a deterrent. WMD were not a deterrent, since the destruction of Iraq's WMD stockpiles was well-deocumented. As for the "intelligence": aluminum tubes? Yellowcake? Disinformation fed up the line by Chalibi's INC and the neocons in the DoD. The CIA's intelligence estimates were consistently out of step with thos eof other agencies, such as the IAEC and UN inspection teams. Bad intelligence and more. What we had was a combination of incompetence and delibrate distortion. By the way: your link relies heavily on Laurie Myrolie's work" work which has never been backed by intelligence community. Armchair Provocateur Nothing new here. Deliberate foreign policy decisions are shrugged off as "mistakes", and the ends always justify the means. Of course, no acknolwedgement is made between policies of the past (Oh, sure we supported Saddam then, but only because the Iranians were bad) and policies today. Everything exists in a historical vacum. No precedents, no patterns of behavior.

Furthermore, Saddam's atrocities were well known for most of the last 25 years. Yet suddenly it becomes a priority? Up until the day of the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a fine guy. Then he slipped his leash and had to be punished. Again however, that punishment did not extend to his outster by the coalition, nor did the coalition support the rebellion of Iraqi generals and people, a uprising that was encouraged by the west. The rebels wanted access to captured Iraqi equipment and wanted the U.S. to prevent helicopters and so on from destroying them. The U.S. just backed off and effectively authorized Saddam to destroy the rebellion, which could have overthrown him. However, the overwhelminging consensus was that Saddam's iron-fist brought stability to the region, which allowed western firms and governments to continue to do business with him (even if it meant violating sanctions).

I thought/hoped this Dickensian crap went out of fashion along time ago. Alas. Funny how you are able, in one breath, to describe the homeless as a non-homogenous group, yet are bale in teh very next sentence to account for their situation as a result of individual choice. Homelessness, for the vast majrity, is not a choice nor a consequense. If that were the case, we wouldn't have such phenomenons as the working homeless, a growing trend whereby people with jobs and livings are simply unable to find affordable housing. The homeless situation is the very tangible result of policies implemented by Paul Martin and the Liberals.

Y'know, KK, I was gonna go through point by point, when it hit me: why bother? From your tone it's clear you have both feet planted firmly in the soil of American exceptionalism: America by definition can do little wrong, makes no mistakes and is always on the side of justice, truth and freedom. Faced with such a rigid, dogmatic belief system, what argument, what evidence will stand? It's like debating the existence of god with a Jehovah's Witness: their entire belief system presupposes such a thing, thus rendering discussion pointless. You take the U.S.'s good intentions purely at face value and accept all offical decrees without an ounce of skepticism. Simple fact is: the Iraqis want the military occupation to end. they don't care about the bloodshed to follow, they want to make their own destiny. Boy, you just cannot wrap your head around teh concept that ousting saddm Hussein (a good thing, in and of it's self) is not the issue. The issue is selective support or censure of despots, thugs, crooks, murderers the world over by western nations out of pure self-interest. Trumpeting Saddam's ouster and using dead Iraqis as props doesn't change the fact that there are similar people running around elsewhere committing the same crimes, but who do so with the license of the west. This seriously undermines the argument that Saddam's removal was predicated on humanitarian grounds. The Taliban actually did have widespread popular support when they took power. They were seen by Afghanis and the western nations who backed the mujahadeen insurgents as a stablizing force. Again, the language is telling: only "we" can stabalize Iraq and bring democracy. Of course it will be "our" democracy.

The discussion of consumption taxes is interesting as the rise in consumption taxes and user fees is part of the same agenda that has shifted the tax burden to the middle and low incomes. Wrong. They are regressive by definition because low income people spend a greater portion of their income and are, therefore, hit harder by consumption taxes than the wealthy, who may pay more in total, but save a larger percentage of their income. Marginal tax rate generallly refers to income taxes, whereas the overall tax rate can include provincial and even excise taxes. As for the enduring myth of welfare bums: hand outs, loan guarantees and tax breaks to corporations cost canadians more than the entire welfare system. Shit, EI even runs a surplus.

Nationalism, as a rule, is foolishness. It breeds chauvanism, arrogance and a sense of entitlement. "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Dunno who said that, but it was someone who knew what they were talking about.

See, what we have here is a failure to communicate. To you, it seems the oil argument boils down to the U.S wanting control of Iraq's oil, which is fundamentally true. However, thewre are numerous complexities, such as Iraq's decision to peg oil prices to the Euro, the rising strength of India and China (which are becoming major consumers of fossil fuels), access to Central Asian gas reserves and the need for a military prescence to maintain that access, profits for American and allied corporations (in the age of globalization, corporate nationalities mean little; whether the war was fought for Exxon or TotalElfina is irrelevant, either way, control of natural resources is out of the hands of the Iraqi people), etc etc. But by boiling the argument down to the simpelest possible level, you miss the point completely. I don't follow youir logic. There's no guarantee the insurgency (which is, as I described elsewhere, not a singular monolithic entity, nor do the various factions share objectives) will lead to a democratic Iraq, therefore, they are by default affiliated with Al Qaeda? Again, you are viewing the Iraqi people through the distorted lens of ethoncentrism and cultural ignorance. You seem to assume that Taliban style religious dictatorships are the default mode of governance for all Arab peoples. Iraq has a strong secular tradition and, until recently, had one of the best educated populations in the region. However the fundamental point of all this is: it's not our call what form of government the Iraqi people opt for. Video shows wedding perty You seem to view the U.S. with a child's faith in a parent. People often draw parralells with the successful post-war reconstruction of Germany. Flawed as this comparason is, there's a vital point to be drawn from it: both those nations had their civil infrastructure intact. That means many former Nazi loyalists continued to hold important positions in the new government to ensure a continuity of government. By completely de-Baathifying Iraq's government, as oppossed to gradually weeding out the more egregious criminals, the U.S. threw the civil structure into utter chaos. And how are they trying to build teh new "unchaotic" Iraqi body of government? By brining in old Baathists. I've said before that the U.S. has lost the war for the hearts and minds of the Arab people. But use of brute force to quell the insurgency would destroy what gioodwill remains in the west. The U.S. would become a global pariah. But the crux of your argument for the legality of the war is that Iraq (which was not demonstrated to be a threat) is that Iraq violated the letter of the resolutions against them. IOsraelhas done the same, therefore, whether they pose a threat or not is irrelevant. Simple non-compliance, by your logic, is basis enough for some kind of action. For starters, I think democratic reforms and the end to the police state-like tactics of the Saud regime would forestall any coups (besides, the Sauds are under constant threat of overthrow). Eventually, I envisioned that Saudi Arabia could have made the transition to a Spanish style monarchy, with the House of Saud as nominal figureheads. How long would this take? Dunno. But as I said, haste shouldn't be a consioderation. Gradual change is necessary to allow a democratic culture to develop. Democracy simply can't exist without certain preconditions, such as a free press and an educate dpopulation. You can't just thropw open the door to the voting booth and expect people who've lived under repressive regimes to vote. But if you look at countries where oppressed people have gained democratic freddoms, you find they take them very seriously (probably more than we in the west). Give the Iraqi people some credit. For crying out loud, Iraq was once the centre of human civilization. These people don't need a "benevolant" hand to guide them. They can find their own way, and given enough resources and time, they will. That's a rose-colored view. You make it sound liek a tit-for-tat transaction: the east gets money, the west resources. By that logice, there should be no third world but a global community of equals. However, western governments learned long ago that its easier to do business with repressive regimes that allow for maximum expolkitation of resources, often at the expense of the actual people who liv ethere (read up on the Sudan and how western companies and governments back on eof the vilest regimes on the planet there in order to ensure access to oil). Your view of east/west relations is skewed and ahistorical. Don't make me run through the rogue's gallery of crooks and criminals that still enjoy the favour of western governments. Well, mass graves in Fallujah soccer stadiums may only hold about 600 people, but ya gotta start somewhere... Are you a fortune teller now?

Layton's bang on. In 1993, Martin cancelled federal funding for social housing,a nd then, in his 1995 federal budget, he cut $7.4-billion in social transfers to the provinces and social spending and devolved responsibility for social housing to the provinces. These cuts, when compounded with cuts to social programs like healthcare and employment training programs, were devestaing. Martin will have a hard time defending himself on this, especially when, as official Opposition critic for Housing and Urban Affairs, he co-chaired a Liberal task force on housing. Another shining example of the Liberal's penchant for talking like social democrats and walking like neoliberals. As for the Cons? Well, they would starve government of revenue that could be used for housing and other social programs and direct more to pet projects like the military.

Well, they should be teh companie sthat win the bids. Noty the Vice Presidents former company winning no-bid contracts and then over billing the government for services not rendered (like recent reports of convoys of empty Halliburton trucks driving around Iraq at the American taxpayers expense). Yes. Pull out, let the Iraqi people take charge of their destiny. You determined (from reading the U.S. State Department's web site) that it was not about oil. Until Iraq is ruled 100 per cent by Iraqis, with no forign governments pulling the strings, then we can talk freedom. From the article. Also note that neither story has received any play in any of the "mainstream" media. What we do have here is talk of "Al Qaeda-inspired" groups forming "links" with alleged terrorists. All I can say is, Al Qaeda sure gets around for an organization that was never more than a few hundred strong at its peak, an organization that was said to have been virtually destroyed after the Afghistan invasion. Basically, "Al Qaeda" has become shorthand for any militiant islamic group, even if the connection is as tenuous as a shared ideology. Iraqi authorities, such as the Iraqi police and army, are considered collaborators. However, many members of the Iraqi police and army are actually helping the insurgency on the down lo. As for "killing the helpless" I find it odd that when civilians are killed by acts of the insurgency, its considered an intentional war crime. When the U.S kills civilians (like the wedding that was just blown to hell last week), they're either terrorists or collateral damage. "causing instability"? That was accomplished when the U.S. toppled Saddam's regime and then completely dismantled Iraq's civil infrastructure. Yes, because the U.S. can't use overwhelming force, as that would destory any shreds of credibility they have. So they were forced to quit the field and turn the city over to the insurgents. They have the U.S. over a barrel. 3 million people living in poverty and squalor under the boot of an illegal occupation by a so-called democracy. Three million people: half the number that died in the Holocaust. You don't see a problem with this? You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say that gradual, peaceful reform was impractical because it would take too long. Then in the very next breath, you say that the U.S. occupation needs more time time to fulfill its mission. Well, how much time? I've posted numerous articles showing how the new government will be shackeled by regulations set down by the CPA and staffed with U.S. apointees. You've ignored them all. Imperialism in a nutshell. You've already embraced its tenets: why not just embrace the label? Clearly, you belive the people of the undeveloped world cannot take care of themselves and must be saved by the U.S.A. Otherwise you would advocate less meddling interventionism, not more. The U.S. is changing nothing. It's (literally) business as usual for them.

Bump. Another voice joins the growing chorus against the U.S.'s strategy in Iraq: this time, it's the former head of CentCom. Iraq war a "blunder": Zinni "They've screwed up."