bradco

I agree. I think one of the most distinct places Ive been in Canada is St.Johns. So lets recognize everyone has distinct, including Quebec, and get on with the real issues

In the US such a resolution, properly would result in the promulgators of it swinging from a rope. 1) Common language - You mean the English speakers that predominate from about halfway through Montreal to the ON border don't count, or the ones near Hull? 2) Ditto culture; 3) They wouldn't be self-sufficient or economically viable at anything like their current standard of living; and 4) They'd be landlocked within Canada the same way Lesotho and Botswana are. 1 and 2: Im speaking of the majority of Quebecois. 3 and 4: I completely agree. I dont see why recognition of nation automatically means separation though. As far as Im concerned we can recognize quite a few "nations" within Canada and I dont see that as a weakness.

Lets look at the US historical records. http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif do you have any understanding of global climate change?? Posting temperature records for one country is so incredibly irrelvant!

North Korea and Iran...the two other axis of evil. I wouldn't say the attack on Iraq had made them bold. Check out the timing when they started getting bolder in insisting to "walk the same road." It started right after the popularity of Bush in the USA had gone down dramatically and Americans were clamoring for change! Saying Iraq is a mistake! If you were Iran and North Korea...wouldn't you seize the moment? Here you have a weakened president...because his citizens not only do not support his policy...but are now demonizing him as well! Of course the terrorists learn from Vietnam! From American reactions that led to its end and the effective type of warfare! The vietcongs were "invisible" then....that's why it was a hard war to win...and the terrorists are "invisible" now! So, couple that with an unabated global hate and global bashing for Bush...I'd say thanks a lot! I think I know who helped made Iran and North Korea much, much bolder...and the world in a much greater danger today! I find it highly unlikely that Bush's public opinion was the determiner for Iran and North Korea. Either way it still stands that Iraq was not a significant deterance. If anything by your line of reasoning Iraq was a big mistake because it ruined Bush's legitmacy since Iraq did not have WMD. It is then Bush's decision to go into Iraq that has led to the bolder Iran and North Korea. Even if public opinion was the main reason, which is highly unlikely, that public opinion would not have nose-dived if Bush hadnt made a mistake and/or lied to the American public.

"giving up the fight to find the terrorists?" Lets see how about giving up the hunt for OBL/Al Qaida and going after someone who had neither attacked you, nor had the capabilities to do so, nor had any motivation to do so. "But actually, I've already touched on that. It's there, in one of my replies." You havent presented any logical andlikely reasoning that proves your point "You've yet to explain yours though....why it wouldn't." -It isnt an attack on a non-state actor so it does not prove the US's abilities to punish a group that isnt confined to a certain territory. Therefore, there is still no credible threat and therefore no deterrance. Its quite simple really. -Furthermore, forfeiting the hunt to find OBL and moving on to Iraq, if anything, proves to the terrorists they can get away with their attacks. It shows that the US doesnt have the resolve to hunt them down. Therefore, no deterrance. -Thirdly, it destabilizes the region and has quite clearly led to more terrorism within Iraq. The inability of the US to bring order to Iraq shows the terrorists that they are capable of winning. No deterrance, motivation to continue attacks

"Darn Brad, how do you know we won't miss with a smaller bomb? What makes you so sure that you wouldn't say..."ooops." Ok you have argued we have complete intelligence of the nuclear threat. We know exactly where it is. So, to deter the attack all we need to do is cripple the countries ability to launch an ICBM, or to protect our allies their ability to launch medium to long range missiles. This does not under any circumstance require levelling cities. We are talking about taking out a place the size of a small shopping mall. Now if you really want to make sure it is destroyed use a really big bomb that will take out everything within a larger area to be overly certain. But that bomb still doesnt need to be a nuclear weapon. Either you have abslutly no understanding of weaponry whatsoever or you are just itching to commit genocide against, in this situation, most likely a muslim population. Im not sure which one to believe as you have shown yourself to be one of the most morally challenged people Ive ever talked to.

"US for suspecting that Iraq has the weapons made other nations think twice before they stubbornly proceed to do so" Have you heard of North Korea??? Iran who is clearly going to walk the same road. Actions like those taken in Iraq do not deter nations from going nuclear, they only prove the necessity of doing so. They increase the demand of WMD as a deterrance against future attacks. For the actions in Iraq to deter a country from going nuclear they need to believe the US willalways leave them alone if they dont go nuclear. SUch a belief will never be held.

Whether the strategy was flawed or not....you still cannot know more than I do that non-state actors wouldn't be coming to conduct their business. Once they know they've got a good plan to penetrate and cripple us....do you think they wouldn't do it...if Iraq did not happen? They know they've got a good strategy. They're "invisible." That's how they'd like to fight this war. You have presented no reasons why Iraq would deter terrorist attacks. Have you presented any reasons why it wouldn't? I think the onus is on you to prove otherwise. How can giving up the fight to find the terrorists and going after a state actor instead deter terrorism? If anything that is a victory for the terrorists....motivation of sorts. The US invovlement in the area, whether justified by our values and interests or not, is motivation to terrorists not deterrence. I think the amount of terrorists who flooded into Iraq to atatck US troops is a good illustration of how they have not been deterred whatsoever.

"I don't believe Quebec is a nation" Really? Common language, heritage, culture but not a nation? They are clearly a nation but a nation that is better off inside Canada, not out of it. Canada is a country of numerous nations and thats not something we should continue to consider as a weakness. "I don't believe the Bloc, should be seating in Ottawa, since they don't believe Quebec is a province of Canada" Thats great and all and quite logical....except for the fact they were democratically elected. Anyone who can be democratically elected should be able to sit in Otttawa. "Why should any province have more representation than the others" All provinces are free to vote as they choose "Just think of the difference in Parliament, if the Bloc weren't there and how the voting would go and the end results!" I agree it would be great! But its up to the people of Quebec to vote in their representatives in the way they feel is in their best interest. The success of the Bloc really shows the failure of federal parties. Recognizing Quebec as a nation is the first step in killing off the Bloc

So you don't support our troops who fought in World War I, World War II or Korea? None of those were peace-keeping missions either. Very disrespectful... Infected by the myth that we are a nation of "peacekeeping". You need to make peace before you can keep it.

The UN should explain why Saddam got away with that, 15 years ago. Sure the UN can explain how none of their members were willing to punish Saddam.

We couldn't afford to miss. If we do, it will be our own millions of innocents who will be unnecessarily pulverized. We dont need to use a weapon that will destroy a 300km radius to ensure we take out a small facility. We wont miss with a smaller bomb. The use of a nuclear weapon here is the biggest overkill possible.

Whether the strategy was flawed or not....you still cannot know more than I do that non-state actors wouldn't be coming to conduct their business. Once they know they've got a good plan to penetrate and cripple us....do you think they wouldn't do it...if Iraq did not happen? They know they've got a good strategy. They're "invisible." That's how they'd like to fight this war. You have presented no reasons why Iraq would deter terrorist attacks.

Well, at this point when we're scrambling to save our own neck....you think the consequences of whacking out entire cities would play so much importance? What is the most important is whacking that nuclear facility for good...with no chance of missing! It's either their civilians or our civilians! Their children or our own children! Who is more important to you? Luckily for the civilized world you are not in charge of defense. There is no logical reason to use a nuclear weapon to take out a small facility that other bombs could easily destroy. There are lots of reaons not to: the immorality of needlessly slaughtering civilians, the danger of legitmizing the use of nuclear weapons, supplying terrorist organizations with a powerful motivating and recruiting tool

"If we can take out their nuclear facility with a nuclear bomb.....why shouldn't we." Cause we dont need to....its just the wrong choice of weapon. Nuclear weapons are designed to take out entire cities but in this case we need a bomb that will take out a small facility. Im not saying dont attack, Im just saying why do we need to go way over board and unnecessarily slaughter millions of innocents?

"Knowing that he'd done a mass massacre and attacked the kurds with chemical weapons is one good reason enough" hmmm maybe they should have punished him for that when he did it 15 years ago! I dont mind knocking out Saddam I think it was a good ends but it was carried out poorly, justified for the wrong reasons and was not a war to provide security to the US. Furthermore there is no reason to be optimistic that Iraq wont fall into the hands of an even worse regime. Iraq is by no measure a success.

You can't say for sure anymore than anyone could that NOT REMOVING Saddam will not allow for anymore spread of terrorism! For all you know, more terrorist attacks like 9/11 would've followed if the US did not react the way it did! You know what most likely stopped any more serious attacks on the US after 9/11? The fear of Bush! They fear Bush will be nuking them out of kingdom come! They didn't want to test him any farther....fearing he might do just that! Strike now and explain later! What was surely happening though was...terrorists were becoming bolder in their attacks before 9/11! Ok Iraq had not interests in terrorism, outside its borders, under Saddam. Now with no authority in that country and its future uncertain it is more possible that a regime will come into power like that of the Taliban in Afghanistan who harboured Al Qaida. "They fear Bush will be nuking them out of kingdom come" No state actors would ever consider attacking the US, before or after 9/11 and Bush's response. The threat comes from non-state actors who are incredibly difficult to just nuke since you have to know where they are first. That is the advantage of not having to protect a territory. Bush's actions in Afghanistan were great. He threw out the Taliban and proved that nations who harbour terrorists will be attacked. But then he gave up the hunt for Bin Laden and moved onto Iraq. US actions in Iraq provided no extra security and possibly insecurity.

"But I see anyone that is against the U.S and it's allies quest against terrorism as a traitor to western ideologies and their respective countries." But what is wrong with questioning their policy and its success at bringing down terrorism? I would conisder it being a traitor to western ideologies to sit back and watch policies take shape that are only going to encourage terrorism. One can be opposed to the war in Iraq for such reasons. Also this war was fought instead of tracking down OBL and bringing him to justice. Isnt giving up on that hunt and taking on Iraq instead being a traitor to western ideology? Isnt supporting all cultures, including muslims, who are not involved in terrorism considered protecting western ideology?

Because of 9/11, the US declared a war on terrorism. Anyone harboring, recruiting, training, breeding, funding, supplying terrorists with weapons, are included in that package. ok and Saddam fits this how? I have yet to see evidence that Saddam harboured, recruited, trained, bred, funded or supplied terrorists with weapons. Doing so would have been against his own interests of staying in power by not pissing off anyone in the west.

Exactly. That's why no one can conclude and make a definite claim that Iraq is an "immoral" war! Yes they can make a claim that Iraq is "immoral" by their definiton. I stand corrected. I failed to add, "...but that doesn't make it so. Universally, that is." ok then, please provide a good moral argument why using indiscriminate weapons, carrying out reprisals against civilians and torturing combatants who dont possess information of a large scale imminent attack is necessary and acceptable

No, it isn't a different story. It is PART of the story! Removing a dictator like Saddam was just a bonus in this part of the story! 9/11 woke the sleeping giant! It just so happened that the leader when it woke up is a guy who hates to be woken up in that manner! Remember the axis of evil? He is gunning to aim for all three...and if he'd had the time, he would have! You failed to address any real connection between Saddam Hussien's Iraq and the attacks of 9/11. If anything removing Saddam will lead to conditions that may allow for groups intent on carrying out events like 9/11 to grow.

Exactly. That's why no one can conclude and make a definite claim that Iraq is an "immoral" war! Yes they can make a claim that Iraq is "immoral" by their definiton. Although different definitons of morality exist some can be better defended than others. Interestingly enough criticisms of certain ways the Iraq war has been conducted were never countered with moral arguments from the other side, quite specificlly because there isnt a good moral argument for using indicscriminate weapons, carrying out reprisals against civilians, torturing combatants who dont possess information that is of utmost concern etc.

You do realize you've got a limited time. What if your tactical non-nuclear weapon fails? You do realize that any launching of full out nuclear strikes will precipitate the same reaction from the enemy in this case. I guess you can argue that they are 24 hours from developing their first nulcear capabilities. In this case a tactical strike to take out their nuclear facilities would work fine. You need to realize that launching ICBM's capable of carrying nuclearpayloads requires expensive and large facilities which when hit will be unable to launch an attack.

"Btw, how can it be in self-defense if you're doing the first strike?" 1. anticapatory self-defense (which is a different concept than pre-emptive self defense) 2. it is the first nuclear strike which is in retaliation, self defense, of a conventional strike "Okay Brad, here's the scenario: If intelligence gave vital info that the ENEMY is launching a nuclear attack in 24 hours. What will you do?" First of all why does my attack automatically have to involve nuclear weapons?? If I have this evidence I can use tactical weapons that are not nuclear to take out the oppositions nuclear facilities. Anyways, in this situation it really is lose-lose for both sides and I see it as very unrealistic. In any response both sides get wiped out. Assuming the other country has there weapons armed as I fire mine they will automatically fire theirs....If they were to attack Id respond by firing mine. It is a MAD concept but it works with state actors. In this example diplomacy and conflict resolution is the only option that doesnt result in my destruction so Id try that route. The only situation MAD doesnt work is with non-state actors. In such a situation there is nobody for me to use nuclear weapons against to stop the attack.

Interesting read. Pulled out two quotes: "The Alberta Forest Products Association says the clause allowing either country to end the deal after three years undermines its value." "The Quebec Forest Industry Council said it was not ready to support the deal, citing worry about the escape clause." Looks like a lot of the worry about the deal was it wasnt secure enough. This leads one to believe the deal itself was good as these lumber groups wanted to ensure it lasts! The government responded and negoitated concessions to make it harder for the US topull out. Thats listening to the industry and negoiating in good faith all rolled into one. Beats just endless whining that was coming from the NDP and Liberals. And coming from someone who will never vote Conservative I think that means something. "how Bush got sidelined last week to a lame-duck lead" Bush isnt the likely opposition. It is Congress/Senate who are most influenced by the lumber lobbyists, and thats regardless of their party affiliation. The election changes nothing.