Black Dog

What's appeasement? About 90 per cent of Spaniards oppossed their country's involvement in Iraq. Anazar ignored the will of the people and paid the price. It's just that simple. The snide comments about "appeasement" and "giving in to terror" reveals a fundamental contempt for democracy among the right.

A recent Gallup poll indicates only 38 per cent of Canadians support the war. The percentage of Canadians against joining a war nearly doubled, with 44 per cent saying they would oppose participation. Sounds like you're the on in the minority, KK.

An excellent article here which illustrates both the pattern of assasisnation and retaliation and how thi slatest incident is being used by Sharon to distract from his domestic problems. Israel's Assassinations Will Only Fuel Suicide Bombings

Oh? Can you elaborate? Do you have anything to counter? As for the "U.S. not Bush", well, this matter goes back to 1967, so Bush is hardly responsible for U.S. policy vis a vis Israel and the OT. And if I were to point fingers at a particular president with regards to the current round of violence, it would be Clinton, who let the opportunity for real discussion and compromise slip away at Camp David. Bus, however has had almost four years to make a differnce. Instead, things continue to get worse. Yeah, people are blowing themselves and those around them to bits on buses, soldiers are gunning down children, people who have lived on the land for generations are being shoved off by religious zealots with Brooklyn accents, orchards are being burned to the ground and hate and fear reign, all becaus ethe people want attention. That is the stupidist assesment of the situation I've seen in a while. However, you do skirt a good point, which is the almost symbiotic relationship between exteremists on both sides. Sharon and his ilk need Hamas and other militant groups and vice versa. For Israeli hawks, terror attacks allow them to use promises of increased security to maintain power in the face of economic failures and scandal. Terrorism also justifies a bloated military budget and massive aid from the U.S. Meanwhile, Hamas et al thrive on repressive Israeli tactics to raise money, bolster their ranks and maintain their grip on Palestinan society. Same coin, just different sides.

That's mighty disingenuous of you, in that you seem to be implying the occupation is the result of Paletinian terrorism, and not vice versa. Oh wait. You say it. Come again? That's a fairly fantastic interpretation of events. Israel occupied the west bank and Gaza Strip after the Six-Day war. How many suicide attacks were there prior to 1967? According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs statistics, 35 Israelis died as a result of militant activity in the period between 1967 and 1999. Since Israel re-invaded the West Bank in 1999, they've been dying ta the rate of 200 per year. So we have a direct link between increased Israeli activity in the OT and increased terrorist attacks. As well, there has been a corresponding decrease in militant activity during periods of peace negotiations. But let's go back for a sec: What prompted the current intifada? We can trace the roots of this round of violence to Sharon's now-infamous walk on the Temple Mount and the failure of the Camp David talks (where Israel refused to compromise on Palestinaian claims on east Jeruselum and Arafat rejected the vision of a massivly divided palestine). Since then settlement building has increased, extrajudicial killings continue to cause massive civilian casualties and Palestinians continue to die at a rate of four per day. All of which would stop if Israel were to immediatly evacuate the settlements, tear down the portions of the wall that stray from the pre-1967 borders and withdraw from the OT completely. As you can see from the above stats, the PA has clearly done a better job of keeping a lid on terrorism than the IDF. That said, I remember a time not too long ago when the PA'as central compound was surrounded by israeli tanks and troops. Kinda hard to crack down on terrorism when the IDF keeps wrecking your infrastructure. Easy. Demand Israel cease operations in the OT (like the extrajudicial killings), disband the settlements and dismantle the portions of the wall that annexes Palestinian land or else suspend aid. Offer the PA assistance in establishing a workable anti-terrorist infrastructure (uh, actually, maybe someone else could do that...) in exchange for Arafat's resignation. To conclude: you're labouring under the impression that terrorism is a result of sheer irrational hatred for the state of Israel. While that is an element, it is not the sole motivation. The occupation and annexation of Palestinian land, the poverty, starvation, humiliation and death facing the almost 2 million residents of the OT allows such views to flourish. Israel's tactics do nothing to halt the cycle of violence and serve to inflame anti-Israeli sentiment.

Dog pile! Kay implores US to admit mistakes in Iraq

Rebut what? You have absolutely no substance beyond "USA good, Communism bad." As you said before: Which isn't the point at all. Indeed, the discussion was on terrorism. The discussion was around whther terrorism exists as a reaction to western policies or not. It was KrustyKidd who first raised the notion that "if not for the US intervening around the globe, you would be carving those words onto on a frozen potato in some work camp in Sasketchewan, looking over your shoulder in fear of being seen doing it." The idea being that evil acts are sometimes committed in the name of a greater good. Which promted a meta discussion about Communism and you to throw in the "110 million killed by communism" number (without attribution, might I add). The crux of your entire argument (such as it is) lies in this: The implication being that those who question the U.S.A are merely ungrateful whiners. Despite your claim that you said the opposite is true, nowhere on this thread do you make that statement. Now, later I posted the following queries: It should also be noted that, despite your posturing, you failed to refute or even address any of the above, even though you claime to have "already answered and refuted" similar queries. So, after reviewing this thread, it's clear that, faced with real questions, you choose instead to duck the issuse, then have the nerve to complain about lack of attribution, and insults where none have appeared.

Bush ignored terror threat Clarke is a former career senior civil servant, a ferocious national security hardliner who served under seven presidents. For someone of his ideological underpinings to level an assault like this at a sitting president is yet further evidence that Bush's reputation as an anti-terrorism tough guy is completely unfounded.

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. If learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of what has been learned is not valuable. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned". That's our Hugo. He clings to his ideology like a drowning man to a tree branch, rejecting potential new sources of information that would undermine his world view and dismissing his opposition with hysterical accusations (ie. "You hate success and achievement, and people and nations that attain them...) and pseudointellectual posturing designed to hide the fact he is unaware (or willfully blind) to the new realities of global capitalism, realities which differ dramatically from the books he takes as gospel. Anyway, I do apologize for the earlier remark. It was indeed bad form. Good post MH.

That list is hardly inspiring one to vote Reformatory. If that rouge's gallery above are embodiments of the kind of changes the new Cons will bring, I think I may just have to vote Liberal.

See, that's the same trite B.S. answer you trot out everytime someone brings up any of the U.S.'s many sins. So what? Every time we mention something bad the U.S. has done, we have to attach a caveat? "Gee, it's too bad the U.S. supplied, trained and armed gureiillas in El Salvador that knife-raped those nuns, but theysurehavedonemoretoprotectourfreedomthananyoneelse!" Does the "fact" of the U.S.'s protection of freedom thus absolve them of their sins? Do the actions of other states, like the former Soviet Union, excuse the actions of the U.S.A? If anyone is acting out of willful blindness it is you. And this proves it.

Well, given how much you like to fling about the number of people killed by Communist regimes, and how said figures justify and excuse any atrocity designed to prevent Communism's asendency, it's logical to assume you would endorse the removal of China's communist regime, a regime with an appalling human rights record. Anyway, Hugo, the implication that we should be eternally grateful to America and not question any of its actions since it "saved" us from a horrible fate under Communism (were it to for the U.S., I'm sur ethe U.S.S.R would hav elong since come over the Pole on dogsled to conquer Canada) is offensive.

In your rush to dole out blowjob sto the capitalist system, you fail to acknowledge that every single thing you mentioned (labour and consuemr portection laws, the 40-hour week, better wages) are a result of social democratic ideals put into action. If you were a true capitalist all of the above would be seen as an impediment to profit which, despite your highly idealized rhetoric to the contrary, is the true (and only) motive of capitalism. That's why the captains of business and industry have been trying des[perately to roll back much of the social progress amde ove rthe past 200 years. Go see the recent documentary "The Corporation" and you'll see how the balance of power has shifted from people to corporations (which enjoy the same rights as you and I with none of the accompanying legal responsibilities). If you think taxes on wealth are the biggest problem facing society today you are out of touch with both real people and reality in general.

Hey numbskull: he said "standard of living" not "per capita income" (which is merely an average). Standard of living includes health care, education, communications, infrastructure, freedom, governance, etc. If anything the U.S per capita income is skewed simply because of the tiny proportions that earn astronomical sums (the 200,000 or so with an annual income of $1 million+) inflate the numbers. A study I read a while ago ranked the U.S. 27th worldwide for SL (IIRC). But I guess for yer average right winger, your life is only worth the contents of your bank account.

Blown to smithereens. The dirty secret of all this is that the U.S could easily bring Sharon and the PA back to the bargaining table and leverage a settlement that would lead to a viable two-state solution. However, Bush has shown no interest in bring Sharon to heel and now a lot more innocents wil pay the price.

Funny, most of the bitching and kvetching on this board with regard to the state of the world is coming from the Reformatory supporters. "The military is in pieces! America doesn't like us! There are to many homosexuals!" etc etc. As for your comment about socialists never solving anything and bankruptuing society, the record in Canadian provincial politics shows that the most fiscally irresponsible governments are those from the right wing (with the exception of oil-bloated Alberta). So, given that your remark was fired in passing, yes it was a drive by. Given that it was incorrect, it was a smear.

Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the founder and leader of the Hamas militant group that targeted Israelis in suicide bombings, was killed by missiles fired from Israeli helicopters as he left a mosque at daybreak Monday, witnesses said. Coincidentally enough, Sharon's Likud government was facing four non-confidence votes in the Knesset today. It's becoming abundantly clear that the corrupt Ariel Sharon is not interested in the safety of Israelis, nor in peace in the region. Instead, he seems driven to create a state of total war between Israel and the Paleistinians to purge the occupied territories of Palestinians andd completes his long-held dream of a massive population transfer of Israelis into the area. While Yassin's death is no great loss, his death will be yet another rallying point for terror groups. Many Israelis and many more Palestinians will pay for Sharon's hubris with their lives. Not to mention that Hamas is no considering targets outside Israel and the OT. This helps nothing. More... Militants vow to "send death to every home" in Israel UK condemns "illegal" attack

Then surely you coukld find a candidate you could support, even if they don't have a chance. Then you can't very well bitch about the state of politics since you can't be bothered to participate in it or work to change it

So, lemme get this straight: large organizations tend to corruption, so we should take the power away from government and give it to large organizations like churches and corporations (y'know, theones that have no public accountability whatsoever)? Okay. Conservatives seem so confused.

Proof of what? My original point: In other words, the iraqi people can have all the democracy they want. They can have a big democracy cakewalk right down the middle of downtown Baghdad and it won't make a lick of differnece because the people who get in will be the people the U.S. wants in. The wishes of the Iraqi people are more or less irrelevant. (update) Lookee here! The clause in question: So the U.S. appointed colonial governor and council (including the likes of criminal toady Ahmed Chalabi) gets to put a whole whack of laws into effect (like, say, massive privatization of national resources) and there's not a helluva lot the future Iraqi government can do about it. Some democracy they're building.

You have an innate ability to be completely out to lunch. Repressive regimes don't spring up in a vacumn. How many of the Muslim world's worst dictators have at one time or another, been clients of the west? Think Hussein, Suharto, the House of Saud etc. So we've hardly set the standard when it comes to promoting democracy. When the west ceases its hypocritical asupport of repressive and tyrannical regimes the in the Mid East and the world over, then you can lecture me.

I look at this way: I may not like my options. I may not agree with any of the candidates. However, if I don't vote, I know there's probably someone out there with whom I violently disagree who'll be using their vote. So if my one vote cancels out one vote for, say, Stephen harper, I'll be satisfied. Finally, if you don't like your options on voting day, why not work to get someone in who you can support?

Your whole premise is flawed. Wher eis the call for greater government power in regards to marriage. I'll take that as a compliment as it comes from the master of the dodge (your initail reply to my post stating was, in itself, a dodge.) But anyway...Your attack is still a straw man. Nowhere did I say that governments are "saintlike in domestic policy." You're a liar. Yes, I believe certain key areas, like health care, education and marriage, are best left to the state's devices. I also believe that the reality of governments today is they are are rife with corrption and greed. But they don't have to be. So, rather than overhaul marriage, why not overhaul government?

Wrong. Without choice (and a clear difference between political options) you don't have a democracy. Because I can. Voting is only one element of a healthy democratic society anyway. Well, $170 million is a awful lot of money. And I'm sure if there was a way for politicians to raise billions of dollars to campaign, they would.

But no one's dictating terms to the rest of the country. The 3 per cent just want the same rights as the other 97 per cent. That's not special treatment, but basic equality. Nice straw man. Again: the government already oversees marriage and it works well enough. You're the one proposing the dramatic change to the nature of the institution from the current status quop. All I'm asking for is that it be tweaked to accomodate the 3 per cent (or whatever it is) of the population who can't marry now. Foreign policy has nothing to do with it.