Black Dog

Uhm.... There are many progressive Jewish (and Zionist) groups and individuals who are fighting hard against the actions of their government (like the militarty refuseniks who risk jail by refusing to serve in the OT). See? Your smears paint them with the same brush as the war criminal Sharon and his hawkish ilk. Do you see now how slandering the entire race is ultimately counterproductive to the cause of peace? That's a straw man generalization that certainly borders on outright bigiotry (the blood libel). besides: what's your definition of a Zionist?

Wow. Your ignorance of history is astonishing. When did we "apologize" for stealing native land and committing systematic cultural genocide? What "special treatment"? Well, they were. Exactly, it is irrelevant. Sure. But pushing the population that was living there out into camps and now practicing methods of ethnic cleansing frighteningly similar to what European Jews experienced in the past is probably not the way to go about it, no? Let me say this nice and slow. There's. No. Fucking. Difference. The soldier who levels his rifle at a child hurling rocks at armored vehicles knows full well what will happen when he pulls the trigger. The helicopte rpilot who takes aim at a car on a crowded street in the midst of rush-hour knows what will happen when the rocket strikes its target. Innocents will die. These are not "accidents", but are shrugged off as "collateral damage". Knowing this and then still committing the act places the individuals responsible on the same moral plane as the suicide bombers. Both target innocents. Depends: will the issue be addressed using the rule of law and international standards of conduct or through unilateral acts of aggression? Apprently the material disparity between the IDF and the Palestinian Authority continues to elude you. Why would the Israelis need to blow themselves up when they can deal death from inside tanks, fighter jets and attack helicopters? By the way: cknykid, cut out the racist bullshit. It's crap like that which allows defenders of the state of Israel to label its critics as anti-Semites. We're talking about the actions of a government, not of a race or religion. Knock it off.

Hey, there's people in this world who buy Celine Dion albums. I guarantee that does more harm to society and general good taste than I could ever do by buying the odd quarter. See, that's the beauty of this thing ya call "freedom": any fool can spend his money on any thing he wants just as long as noone else is harmed. I smoke pot on occassion. I also get up for work every damn day, pay my taxes and keep my nose clean. I don't need some self-righteous busybodies telling me my business.

So you'd be okay with turning all of North America back over to the Natives then? What next? "Israel" was a creation of the United Nations, a post-imperial construct. "Who was there first" is irrelevant. 35 years of displacement, poverty , opression and humiliation, and you're whining becasue the Palestinians won't fight fair?! WTF? Please explain the 600 new settlements in the Occupied Territories and the continued enroachment of the apartheid wall into Palestinian land. Nor can you have peace when you have the long-term, systematic oppression of a population, the use of excessive force against civilians and the continuing practice of collective punishment and so forth. It's a two way street. Every suicide bomb is a blow to the cause of peace. But then so is every IDF bullet that finds a West Bank Child, or every hellfire missle that slams into an apartment complex. All are acts of terror. As it isthe only democracy in the region, I hold Israel to a higher standard than the thugs in Syria, Egypt and so on. they continue to dissapoint. The Camp David accord failed because it did not guarantee the minimal conditions for creating a viable Palestinian state, nor did they concede Paleistinian rights vis a vis Jerusalem or adequately address the plight of the Palestinian refugees. The accord would have carved the PA into a number of bantu states, seperated by the illegal settlements. Thus, the agreement would have offered neither economic viability nor the minimal requirements for a politically independent state.

Thank god nutbars like you don't run the show, then (though Sharon is close). Youi'd start a world war just to make a point. What part of "cycle of violence" don't you pinheads understand? As a wiser man than I said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." The ongoing violence is a direct result of 35 years of humiliation and suffering inflicted upon the Palesitinian people and the ongoing crime that is Israel's bloody expansionism. yet people still see the strongest nation in the region as the victim.

Totally irrelevant. "But they're bad guys!" Is not a valid justification for violating international law. If Israel felt the Syrian camps presented a threat, there are ways to go about bringing the issue to the world's attention, outside of unilateral use of force. Spare me the bogus hand-wringing about Israel's pending demise. With the largest and most sophisticated military in the region, the unequivocable support of the worl;d's largest military power and nuclear weapons on their side, the survival of Israel is only an issue to people seeking to deflect attention away from the state's crimes. Thinking don't make it so. The ever-climbing death toll on both sides seems to bely your statement.

Because I think it's insane that people can end up with a criminal record for "harming" no one but themselves. Right back atcha... That said, there are also benefits to pot. I have a problem right now with pot. I'm almost out. All the time.

Have you ever smoked pot, Gugsy? Apparently not, given you know nothing about it. Instead of continuing to spread the bogus propaganda of the drug crusaders, why don't you try educating yourself on the subject. Pot is far less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco (both of which are legal and totally socially acceptable). Pot is also no more addictive than booze (certainly less so than cigarettes) and the addicition is purely psychological. Now, do some people burn out as a result of chronic pot use? Yeah. But people also turn into raging, wife-and-kids beating alcoholics or deadly drunk drivers, yet there's no hue and cry to bring back prohibition (probably because they tried that and it didn't work). What it boils down to is you've got to be able to handle your shit, as it were. I've got news for you: despite the right-wing paranoid fantasies about pot (which are legion) there are many, many pot users who live regular, productive lives. I know I do. Maybe no one should be "encouraged", as you say, to smoke pot. But what gives you the right to dictate your beliefs to anyone else? Oh and as for Harper: Gugsy: if you're gonna come to play, boy, you better make sure your up for the fight.

I'm confused. An unilateral act of aggression against a soverign country (a blatant violation of international law)is hailed as a heroic act of self defense. Wha...? It doesn't require much training to strap on a vest loaded with dynamite and nails. And, obviously, death is not a deterrent to people who are already willing to die for their cause. Whatever. Sharon (the war criminal) is gleefuly seizing the opportunity to continue Israel's rapacious, illegal expansion into the OT and to secure Israel's military hegemony in the region. At the same time, he gets to put on a big show of striking a blow in the war on terror, while ignoring growing criticism of his security failures at home. To all the Likud apologists here, I just have this to say: are Israelis any safer? Are fewer Israelis dying under the Likud hawks' leadership?

Cool. Beats Harper's retarded statement about he'd rather his kids were drunks than pot heads.

It could also be the next Hitler. Let me ask you: have you ever known anyone whose gone through an unplanned pregnancy? The death penalty doesn't work. It has no effect on deterring crime and, from a punishment standpoint, is merely an exercise in state-sanctioned brutality (are we, as a society, to lower ourselves to the level of the people we deem unfit to live?). It is plagued with problems: chronic bias against the poor and minorities (who can't afford pricey legal defense and have underpayed, overworked public defenders (I read of one death penalty case where the defense attorney slept through large parts of the trial). Some states even target the mentally handicapped and minors. Not barbaric, you say? Yes, the U.S. can stand with such other defenders of human rights and upholders of capital punishment as China, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and more. And spare me the sentimentalist claptrap about "killing innocent babies". There's a world of differenc ebetween aborting a fetus and capping a living child.

When you say "any other rogue nation that imposees it's will on there own and others without guilt or remorse", does that include the U.S? Of course, I'm not saying the world ain't better off without that murderous tyrant Saddam. But for the west to preach freedom and democracy while continuing to support thugs and gangsters the world over is rank hypocrisy.

Saddam invaded Kuwait with the tacet approval of the U.S. and gassed the Kurds whil he was still a client of the Reagan administration. Context is everything. s I said above "programs" is not the same as the clear and present danger we were sold in the run up to war. Exaggerate much? Saddam was a tin-pot, two-bit dictator cut from the same cloth as Suharto, Pinochet, the House of Saud and countless other fellow tin-pot, two-bit dictators the world over. His biggest crime was that he was sitting on the world's 2nd largest oil reserve. If the war was just, why would the CIA need to perpatrate a fraud against the world by planting WMD? Ah the old lie: dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. You've got it backwards. Iraq's invasion was about the needs of the few. It's the many (Iraqis and Americans alike) who will pay the price for years to come.

To paraphrase Churchill: capitalism is the worst system we have but it's better than the rest. I have no problem with capitalism as a tool for creating wealth and maintaining a high standard of living, so long as it is balanced by state intervention to curb the rampant excesses, injustices and inequalities inherent in capitalism. The gap between rich and poor is a problem because it is the result of fundamental inequalities built into the system. You assume that everyone starts out with the same opportunities to advance themesleve (the old bootstraps mentality). That's patently false. As it is, capitalism is a heirarchal system that depends on a constant state of inequality between workers and holder of capital.

It's called realpolitik: a cynical policy of selective support for certain states out of consideration for short-term political or economic gain. Prop up a dictator today, knock 'em down tomorrow: it's a policy that reflects the "ends justify the means" thinking that exists in the highest levels of Western governments. Hell, you see it on this board every day. This is one of things that especially troubles me about the Iraq situation. The West has a long track record (which continues to this day) of stifling democracy in the region by supporting repressive, authoritarian regimes. now we're expected to believe they can, almost overnight, "impose" democracy on Iraq? By fostering the ruling powers of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, we've undermined our own credibility. So how should these nations be represented? Is isolation from the world community really going to foster change?

There's never been a true "free-market" state anymore than there has ever been a purely socialist state. Both are unfeasable. However, the difference is that (theoretically speaking) is that inequality is the basis of free-market economics. The high standard of living that exists in free-market nations is often because of socialist-style policies (unionization, for example). The problem is in today's western (read: North American) states, the market is no longer considered a tool by which a high standard of living can be acheived across the board. It is the master. Policies are largely predicated on blind allegiance to an economic dogma that, in practice, has proven to be a failure. It's merely a matter of scale. The Soviet Union, for instance, was an authoritarian state with a centeralized economy, not an actual functioning socialist state. The mistake free-market apologists often make is equating the economic system and the potential material benefits it can bring with actual freedom. The two are not inseperable and indeed are often incompatable. Boo-hoo. the top 10 per cent (or whatever) may shoulder a larger part of the tax burden, (what? 40 per cent?) but when you consider they also own more than half of the wealth, the tax system still leans far too heavily on low and middle-income indiividualos and small business: the true drivers of the economy. But I digress.

But what is a capitalist government? The closest I can think of is facism (aka corporatism), where state and corporate interests work hand in hand. You can have a socialist state government with a capitalist economy.

That's the point though: they have not demonstrated that Saddam was a threat to America. There's no links between Saddam and Al Q'aeda, so iraq has never attacked "your neigbourhood". I can't just break into your house, kill you and your family and steal your stuff because I think you might *someday* do the same to me. That's what the U.S did in Iraq.

Capitalism isn't a form of government. It's an economic system.

Dependas on what you mean by patriotism: crticizing the government is the duty of every patriot. Blindly falling in line behind the symbols of a nation (like we saw after 9-11) is a derelection of duty. You're right, but not. I have a sneaking suspicion based on your comment that "majority decides not to speak for the fear of appearing rascist or prejudice" (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the minority you speak of are the usual hobgoblins the right-wing likes to blame for the decline of civilization: feminists, unions, environmental advocates, and others who get tarred with the "special interest" brush. Again, if I'm, wrong, I apologize. However, you are correct in that the U.S. is being run by a small minority. I'm talking about the 1 per cent of the population that controls 50 per cent of the wealth: the upper echelons of society who see the country as nothing more than a tool for them to make a profit off. These are the people who bend the ears and grease the wheels in the corridors of power: just take a look at the current administration. You canprettyy much draw a straight line between it's policies and the interests of their supporters in Corporate America. these same people are the ones selling the flag-worshipping brand of jingoism that passes for true patriotism today. Any yahoo with a Stars and Stripes on his car aerial can call himself a patriot these days: he may not vote, or bother to get informed about what's heppening to his country or question th eactions of his government, but goddamnit! he's a patriot. Sounds like an urban legend to me.

Since you're able to tell the future, can you clue me into next week's lottery numbers? The position above requires a few large leaps of logic. 1) That Saddam would have been able to develop weapons programs of significant magnitude as to pose a direct threat to the U.S. 2) That Saddam would then use said weapons, despite the fact that such use would virtually guarantee his destruction. 3) There's allso the view that Saddam could sell WMD to terrorists. Notwithstanding the fact that there are plenty of other countries who could perform the same task, you also have to assume some idealogical compatability between secular-socialist Saddam and Islamic militants like Al Q'aeda when no such link has been demonstrated (giving money to the families of suicide bombers is not in the same ball park as selling someone a nuke to use on NYC). Sorry, but "programs" doesn't cut it. The war was prosecuted on the basis of Iraq having emmense stockpiles of WMD that could be turned against the west at a moment's notice (Tobey Blair's "45 minutes"). Without the threat of WMD, the war is shown to be exatcly what it's been all a long: an imperial adventure to secure a regional power base, put Iraqi oil resources under U.S. control and provide new opportunities for U.S. corporations.

But we're not there to fight a war. We're there under a UN mandate to keep the peace, not prosecute a war as a proxy of the U.S. Now, if it's a peacekeeping operation, how can we be expected to keep a non-existent peace? Perhaps if America had stuck around and saw the reconstruction through instead of galloping off to trash another dusty third-world country, Afghanistan would be a little bettter off today. As it is, the reconstruction is floundering. Kharazi is viewed (rightly) as a U.S. puppet with no local power base beyond Kabul. While imperial apologists are quick to point to improvements in human rights (such as the refrain of "at least women can go to school now."), these are virtually non-existent outside the capital. The Afghan countryside is dominated by tribal warfare and a surprisingly (for a group that was said to have been wiped out) energetic Taliban, which continues to enforce it's version of sharia on anyone they get their mitts on. It's bloody mess and it's looking more and more like there's no plan for rebuilding the country. You wanna start rebuilding Afghanistan? Start by turfing the current group of U.S. quislings led by Kharachi and bringing in a genuinely representative local government. Push for more resources to train, equip and pay local security forces (Afghanistan has been the punching bag for the imperial powers for hundreds of years. Consequently, foreign troops will always be viewed with suspicion). Push the U.S. to stop it's support of Pakistan's military dictatorship, whose ISI security service continues to provide aid and comfort to Al Q'aeda and Taliban elements. Once some semblence of security is acheived, let international NGOs in to do the work of rebuilding the country.

It's rather hilarious to see the master of the ad hominem and the creator of straw men whine like a child when the tables are "utterbly" turned. As I said before (in a point you--surprise!--failed to address), "Instead of acknowleging the complexities of post-war geopolitics and the lingering effects of imperialism, Craig takes the coward's way out and, as befits his rigid, dogamtic idealogy, lays 100 per cent of the blame on Islam's doorstep." I challenged you (twice now) to offer proof of Said's alleged racism.. You haven't delivered. Could it be you're pulling these allegations out of thin air to support your racist bluster? Must be. As for the others...ooh! Craig read a book once! Unfortunately, just mindlessly parroting the views of others (without actually referencing them) doesn't make your point. It just shows you have a library card. As for the rest of your waste of bandwith, I could produce endless quotes from the Bible or Torah that espouse violence, but that certainly wouldn't demonstrate the "failure" (a term you have successfully beat into the ground without ever actually qualifying) of Christianity or Judaism, but what would be the point? Finally, I'm personally sick of your condescension and racsim. I'm certain you lack the balls to speak to someone like this in person (if you did, you'd probably get your ass kicked). There's clearly no point in discussing issues with a blind, pompous, idealogue lik eyou. You simply repeat ad naseum the same vile and boring garbage you've vomited out a thousand times before. You are a failure and I'm done with you.

Sad thing is, people who listen to Rush and his ilk already believe the garbage. That's how Rush, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and a legion of other shrill soldiers of the punditocracy have become so successful: by telling people what they want to hear.

Abortion is not murder because you're not killing a person. The death penalty is barbaric, archaic and, in practice, monumentally flawed. So you can say, with 100 per cent certainty, that every individual on death row: a. is guilty of the crime for which they are being put to death and b. would kill again, given half the chance. And you get this from....where?