bradco

"I think it should be revised in the sense that those who do not follow the Geneva Conventions rule should not be protected by the said rules. Or something similar to that." Have no fear they already have such rules. Beligerent reprisals are allowed. If someone breaks humanitarian law you are allowed to do so in return. Only caveats are: the reprisal must be proportional to that of the original violation and the intentional targeting of civilians is still not allowed. For example, if one group used chemical weapons on another it is, in my understanding, not strictly forbidden to use chemical weapons in retaliation. Additionally, it is also my understanding that those who violate the rules governing how one can fight forfeit some of the protections offered under the Geneva Conventions. ""The terrorists" don't even exist under geneva conventions. Since they aren't legally "enemy combatants" that excludes them from the right to claim status under the conventions." The big reason they dont is because terrorism was not a real issue/priority at the time. Congress and the Bush adminstration were quick to point this out and we will see how the law transforms in that respect. As violators of international humanitarian law I dont think too many people are going to lose sleep over terrorists not retaining the same rights. However, the citizens caught up in our battle with terrorists do have rights and those must be respected when we battle terrorists. "The UN doesn't represent western civilized values my friend. Do you think welcoming a holocaust-denier into your organization to say a few words to the general assembly represents "western civilized values"?" But does he have any power in the UN? Letting people in universally and to speak is a western value in itself. Make no mistake though the real power is still vested with the west. Read the UN Charter and explain how it does not represent western values? Explain how anything the UN has authorized isnt for western values. For those who think that the west is truly moral in the way we fight Id encourage them to actually find out about the way the Iraq war has been conducted. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the people who have to live through the war in their own neighbourhood and ask yourself whether all our actions are morally justifiable. And keep in mind that neither the people of Iraq or even their former brutal leader have attacked the west.

"So what do we do? Change our culture to something they'd find acceptable....as a form of appeasement, of course?" -Im actually arguing against changing our culture. Im arguing that we need to follow the rules that have been dictated by OUR culture. You seem to, on the other hand, argue that we should betray our own rules and culture and fight "dirty" like the terrorists since they won't follow the rules. Its the rules, and by extension our culture that made those rules, that we are fighting for. "Well I don't know what's in the international humanitarian law, so I can't say if that is what I mean." -Before arguing we shouldnt follow it maybe you should do some research on it then. International Humanitarian Law is the collection of treaties and customary law that binds the civilized states in how they conduct wars. "So what kind of "saving" do you think they want...if they don't want our physical involvement?" -I said nothing against "physcal involvement". However, "physical" involvement can varry in how its conducted. Now Im not saying there wont be collateral damage because there is in any war. However, the way the U.S. has fought the war in Iraq is illegal and immoral by any civilized standards. Unfortunatly the main stream media, especially in America, does not feel the need to report on it. I single out America because it is their campaigns and actions in Iraq that have been more questionable than their British counterparts. "So I see you've got a beef with the USA." Mostly with the current administration. The US does have a long history though of questionable foreign policy. That seems to be a basic characteristic of most superpowers throughout history though I guess. "I tried doing the multiple boxed thing...but I can't make it work." haha neither can I. I spaced my quotes a little more if that helps. "Why do you think they're not as useless now? Or worse? The enemy does not follow the laws and norms. It takes two to tango.If your enemy is not obligated...nor does it have any inclination at all to follow the laws, in fact it laughs and scoffs at these said laws and uses it as a weapon to wield against you....then obviously, you're in a pickle!" The big difference now I guess is that the enemy is not as strong a threat militarily. The big problem was that it took that war where the rules were not followed to prove the real value of the rules. We need to follow the rules and set an example as the civilized nations. As I said even the Department of Defense in the US said Iraqi violations of the rules provide no advantage. I just fail to see how following international humanitarian law handicaps us in our fight against terrorism. Can you explain how?...I guess after you read up on it and exactly what the rules are.

Betsy, you are an ignorant bigot. Why don't you and Argus get together? Otherwise, I would have to tell the two of you to go f*ck yourselves. That is way over the line and uncalled for. I agree, a little over the top. Also over the top is suggesting that we should intern people.

"Myata's definition of democracy (note no source provided);" best book out there on demoracy is: On Democracy, Robert A Dahl, Yale University Press (2000) He lists pretty much the same characteristics as Myata as necessary to be democratic. The more characteristics a state has the more democratic they are. The implication is that it takes more than free, fair and frequent elections to be democratic. Too many people share your minimalist interpretation of what exactly democracy means. Dahl's argument would be ok so you have an election. But if theres only one choice is that democratic? If theres no freedom of association than not all parties are allowed to run.If you dont have freedom of the press than voters cant be truly informed or engage in debate that is necessary for "true"democracy which rests on ebing informed. To Myata's list, from Dahl, I would add control of the agenda. You can have all the other aspects of democracy but if you dont get to decide what you have control over than your not truly in a democracy. I would HIGHLY recommend Dahl's book. Interesting and educating and his writing style is really good. First 30 pages or so are a little dry as he gives background, history of democracy but once he gets going he puts forth a very good argument.

First of all, it would be much easier to respond to your post and much easier to read if its all made in a single post. "There was an unwritten code of honor that the civilized nations followed in the old days." The laws and norms proved themselves pretty much useless in world war II and I hope that this new war on terror does not have the same result. I for one put value on all human life, especially innocent civilians. If anything we need enforcement measures to make the rules more than just lip service to ideals. Either way, nations have been codifying international humanitarian law in written treaties for a lot longer than you realize I think. It wasnt an "unwritten" code. There are examples dating back as far as 1868 that I know of. -1868: St. Petersburg Declaration -1878: Project of an International Declaration Concerning the Laws and Customs of War -1899: annex to the above declaration -1899 through 1907: Hague conventions prohibiting the use of numerous weapons The horrors of the second world war started a new push towards a more civilized way of warring. "So can you explain why you're so sure that's the best way to go?" Can you explain why your way is better? Ill mention mine later in this post. "Besides, you seem to be confused.... equating fighting back with acts of terrorism? So now, when you hit back....that's now defined as terrorism?" No, apparently you are confused. I never said that. Hitting back while following the current international humanitarian laws is not equated to terrorism. The well documented instances in Iraq where the US has been involved in legally and morally questionable actions have stepped into a world where they are embracing values shared by the terrorists. "The great nations of the old days like England and USA had done perfectly well during the old wars...moral-wise, don't you think so?" Im sorry, did they skip over World War II in your history class? Did you skip over all the US shenanigans in Latin America? Im sure Latin America wouldnt share your same love for the morallity of former US policy makers. Those instances mostly regard jus ad bello rules though so probably not all that relevant to the current discussion. "So you do not approve of the tactics the Israeli soldiers did regarding those women?" Again (the third time now), I say that their actions did not violate any current international humanitarian laws. Not even the ones that their government refuses to sign. "They'll end up losing hope waiting for all our quibbling over what is acceptable and inacceptable." Not everyone wants us to be "liberating" them. Not everyone is waiting for us to roll on in and save them, whether its whats best for them or not. And they are most definetly not waiting for us to roll on in like the US did in Iraq. "Because when we follow all the imposed outdated and impractical rules, we'll lose." I assume you mean the rules of international humanitarian law. I disagree. Following these rules really does not put us at any disadvantage in the war especially since we have an incredible technological, economic and miltary advantage. The US Department of Defense after the first Gulf War specifically stated so in saying that Iraqi violations of such laws afforded them no advantage. Furthermore, as I have said already in order to win this war it is going to take changing deeply entrenched feelings against us in the Middle East. We wont be able to do this by ignoring humantarian rules, norms and ideals. "If our grandchildren end up being under an oppressive regime as the outcome....THEY WILL be the ones calling us stupid! And cursing us to boot." Are you kidding? Its not like even the terrorists actually think they will win to the extent that they will actually take over our nations. The most likely chance of our grandchildren being under oppressive regimes comes from us putting in our own oppressive regimes in response to vaguely defined threats to national security. Doing so would be violating our own values. Hey wait a second, that starts when we violate our own values in fighting with disrespect for our own rules. "What makes you think terrorism will wane...if we don't make it wane?" What makes you think that we can defeat terrorism by just indiscrimately blowing up everything in sight? I never argued not to fight terrorists. I argue for a balanced approach that is much different to the approach of the current US administration. The atrocities that the US commits in Iraq and the method they fight are only strengthing the terrorist resovle and breeding more terrorism. The way the Iraq war is being fought is making us less secure in the west. Afghanistan is a little bit different but more balance is needed as well. "Terrorists are not playing a silly game...they are dead serious!" Of course they are! Thats why I propose a solution to the problem that may in the long run help destroy the threat they pose. Anyone who thinks we can destroy completely any terrorist threats solely by indiscriminate bombing campaigns throughout the world does not have a firm grip on reality. This is a long term problem where groups of people have resentment towards our entire culture. Since we cant possibly wipe everyone of them off the face of the planet we need to start fighting them in a manner that wont encourage more resentment from others who dont hold such feelings yet. "You do not bind yourself with restrictive rules that render you helpless" Hyperbole. None of the current rules render us "helpless". The only ones helpless are the ones the west go to battle with. "In times of conflict or engagement....the innocent civilians run the other way....far, far away!" Something very easy for you to say because you have never lived through a war on your own soil. So any civlians who died in world war one and two have only themselves to blame? They should have just run away to the country side right? How exactly do you propose for millions of urban dwellers to just pack up and move out of their cities and find a way to survive in times of conflict. The laws are in place because people with half a brain no that civlians will inevitably find themselves caught in the crossfire, in positions where they cant just run the other way. Sure in this one case they could have but I already said they werent "civilians" here. I told you that the Israeli actions were already within the law. "I now wonder why some nations refuse to sign the Protocol 1. What's in it?" Good stuff if you have a conscience and any morals. Im sure you can find it on the internet if you want. full name is: Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August, 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) 8 June, 1977

For what. That their revolt did not work. Too bad. Revolts do not always work. Any DipS@it knows that. Well, lets invent a somewhat comparable hypothetical situation. Say Al Qiada encourages some group in the United States to revolt and uprise against the Bush administration. Bush acts swiftly to protect the integrity of the country and massacres the rebels who are intent on destroying the United States. Should he hang for that offence? Now obviously the big difference is that Mr. Bush is a democratically elected leader while Mr. Hussein is a brutal dictator. However, international law does not recognize one form of government to be necessary. State sovereignty is always put ahead of individuals and this is something that even us in the west continue to believe in. The use of banned weapons, however, by Saddam in his attack on the rebel uprising does violate international norms and laws. For this offense he needs to be tried at an international court.

"1. Right. The national interests of the UNITED STATES were involved, and our membership in an alliance led us to assist them in protecting THEIR national interests. I'm okay with that, but that doesn't make it OUR national interests." -Its in our national interest to follow through with our agreements otherwise we lose the guarantees that our allies would do the same. Membership in the alliance is in OUR national interest. "2. The regime that threatened the national interests of our ally has been overthrown. Job well done. The rest of this 'mission' is a farce." -This rests on the notion that allowing for Afghanistan to fall back inbto the same hands wont threaten the future security of our allies and ourselves. Our national interest is probably to ensure that a regime is put in place that will not harbour terrorists. Even if the terrorists dont plan to attack us specifically it does us no good, economically for example, to see a repeat of 9/11.

Germany after WW II? democracy wasn't entirely foreign to Germany though... Even Hitler was first elected legitmately.

"I don't see how we are forfeiting the war to them by taking them on." Thats not what I said. I said we forfeit the war when we engage in wars and disobey our own values, morals, our way of life....the very way of life we are supposedly battling for. We can still take them on and win by following the rules set out in international humanitarian rule. "Because in the end, the ways of all life, lead to one simple rule: survival!" But can you actually destroy terrorism by engaging in terrorism? To defeat terrorism is a long term battle where you need to prove your way of life and your values are superior. How can you do this if you resort to terrorist values right away? The long term "survival" of our way of life depends on fighting in a way we deem to be moral. Dont mistake this for me saying we shouldnt fight. We need to fight but following the current rules and allowing for a bit of morality proves that are values are superior. The terrorists can call us stupid but someday I think the people will see our actions and see the terrorists actions and support for the terrorist cause will weaken. When we dont follow our rules we only breed more terrorism.

But should we assume every person wearing a burqua is a fighter?

"WWII, unlike Afghanistan, did involve true national interests of Canada" We came to the aid of our American allies when they were attacked by a group that was harboured by an Afghanistan regime. We went to Afghanistan because it is in our best interests to support our allies and honour collective security agreements. The benefit to Canada is that if someday we are attacked the Americans will do the same for us. We stay in Afghanistan to affirm our commitment to our allies to ensure they will share the same commitment to us. We stay in Afghanistan because it is in our best interests that the state does not fall back into the hands of a group that will harbour terrorists intent on attacking our allies or ourselves. We stay because its in our best interests to prove to the rest of the world that is skeptical of our actions that we are there to help the Afghani people in their pursuit of freedom not just demolish their country. A successful result in Afghanistan will go miles in winning a broader "hearts and minds" campaign that is important forour security.

Help them govern outside Kabul. Fight back the Taliban and hope they come to their senses and willingly decide to participate in society and respect others. If not, weaken them to the point they cant and the Afghan army could deal with this threat on their own. As I said this will require shutting the Pakistani border and bringing the Pakistan regime into the fight on our side. Second, we need to destroy the ability of local warlords to maintain power. Seriously, lets burn down all the heroine crops and destroy the source of their wealth. Move to a positive rebuilding strategy in areas where fighting has subsided and start such a strategy as we move back the Taliban. Doing so will legitmize our cause to the people of Aghanistan and help to win the "hearts and minds" campaign. Not enough effort is put into this kind of strategy which is a shame becauseit is the most important part for long term stability. We have to show why democracy is superior. An extensive "propaganda" campaign needs to be waged to educate the public outside of Kabul on what rights and democracy means and how it will better their lifes. Cutting and running would be the worst option. Propping up the existing government beats letting the country fall into the hands of the Taliban. Long-term we need to look at strategies of how we can pullout while leaving behind a peaceful area. We need to get past the current debate of whether to stay or not.

"Insisting that you won't talk to a group is an idiotic approach." Its not that we wont talk but that there is nothing to talk about at this moment. Until the Taliban make an effort to show that their is some point in talking then why bother. Could we actually trust this group to honour any commitments we make with them? I would say no so the risk of coming across as weak and looking for a way out right now is not a good idea. The Taliban would undoubtadly use any move by us to iniate negotiations as a victory and it would only add momentum to their cause. "Much of the fighting was also done by foreigners in the Afghan war with the Soviets. It contributed to the Soviets withdrawing as it will contribute ultimately to Canada withdrawing." The fighters against the Soviets in the Afghan war were dependant on American military support in arms, training and organization. Without it they would have been hopeless. Thats a big difference between the conflicts. The big thing we need to do is close the Pakistani border so they cant rest up to attack again. That was also a problem for the Soviets. "We'll have to pull out one day, and look what happened when Soviets did" The Soviets withdrew in part because public opinion against the war was ridiculously high. When they finally withdrew they made no effort to offer assistance to the government they had installed and protected. The many groups the Americans had been supporting were also not a cohesive group and all had their own plans. The Americans made no effort at sorting out the problem of Aghanistan because all that mattered for them was getting the Soviets out. This time instead of everyone cutting and running a pull-out needs to make sure to leave the country in an organized and acceptable state. This doesnt have to mean propping up the current government. But if we just pull-out now I see no indication that we will not be back there in a decade or less.

Absolutly horrible idea! This would, in my opinion, result in higher unemployment. If I have to pay a higher wage to all my employees Im going to lay off the less talented ones and pay more to my more talented ones to make sure they stick around and work hard for me. This is yet another example where the NDP is out of touch with reality. They let things that sound good on the surface form their policies without thinking of what the consequences of such policies will be. "I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it costs an employer on average $10 an hour to pay an employee $8 an hour because of payroll taxes and forms." Correct. Personally, only about 80% of my labour costs are actually paid out in wages. The rest goes to matching cpp, ei contributions and insurance. "A lot less partronizing than telling those people that they should only be paid what the 'market' decides even if that is 0.50/hour." The minimum wage is fine where it is though. A lot of people dont work hard enough and deserve the wages they are already getting.

"Of course he does." Thanks for the quote, never seen him lay it out so straight forward like that. Do you have the source for that? The question is then how much this influences is foreign policy or whether or not it is some other factor. Ive always had a feeling that Bush has a crusade for democracy because of this. I dont question his intentions regarding it but more the method he goes about trying to reach the ends.

Im curious whether or not the Bush adminstration subscribes to the Democratic Peace Theory and whether or not this plays a role in their foreign policy. While I generally agree the theory is correct, you cant breed democracy with bombs. Thoughts?

I wonder if Taliban Jack reads the globe? Maybe he would be willing to change his stance on Afghanistan.

I dont care for Harper whatsoever but he has done a pretty good job and I support continuing with a conservative MINORITY government. -the flag issue: is there an issue? I though military families didnt even have a problem with this. Lowering a flag isnt the best way to show our thanks/support for troops. -income trusts: corrected a Liberal mistake? This will all blow over -Afghanistan: probably hurt him but not really fair. Liberals went there and we ought to be there. -Softwood lumber: helped solve an issue that has plagued our relations. Getting past all the political rhetoric we got a good deal which is the best we could get. Almost any deal would have been better than no deal. "Paul Martin similarly had many pieces of legislation that never made it through to the next election." please, come on. Martin was all talk no action. Too much of a chicken to take a stand on anything or act on anything. Examples: sending SSM to the surpreme court to try to argue his hands were tied instead of taking a principled stand, whining about the big, bad environmentally unfriendly American adminstration while overseeing a government doing absolutly nothing on the environment The one area Harper isnt doing what he should is the environment. Whats the worst thing about this? He has already down more than Martin and the Liberals ever did. There are other areas needing to be addressed and a feel he will do so. I would like to see action on the Arctic sovereignty issue and really the conservatives are the only party right now that has any chance of negotiating in good faith with the US.

"The terrorists of today do not follow the Geneva Conventions!" Thats kind of my point. The terrorists want us to submit to their world where it is acceptable to target and kill civilians. By submiting to their philosophy we are forfeiting the war to them. At least if this is truly a war of "ways of life". We need to follow our civilized rules because its those very rules that we are fighting for!!!! Also interesting is the allowance of "beligerent reprisals" in international law. If the other side breaks the law some acts that also break the law can be taken in response. Such reprisals must be proportional and not directed purposefully at civilians (collateral damage is allowed in accordance with the law). Additionally, those individuals who break international laws forfeit some of the benefits extended to "prisoners of war". "So if your enemy's main location is in the middle of a village (for strategic purpose obviously)....do you mean to say, we shouldn't engage then? That bombing it is not acceptable?" There is no law that says we cant. All the laws specifically say that as long as their is a military objective being targeted it is fine. Collateral damage is acceptable as long as the collateral damage does not exceed the miltary necessity of the operation. Ill give an example. The US had used an unmanned spy plane to track Mullah Omar into an apartment building. The strike was called off by Central Command because the civilian death toll would be way to excessive compared with the objective of killing one guy. According to the New Yorker Rumsefeld was left "kicking a lot of glass and breaking doors". Anyone with any amount of "civilized" morals would agree with the decision from Central Command. Would you find it acceptable that a building in New York or Toronto is brought down to kill one man? Now if it was more than one man (or the "enemy's main location" and hence a larger military necessity) and the civlian death toll was expected to be reasonable I would not have a problem with the attack, and neither would international law. Do you care to argue that it is moral to completely disregard the impact on innocent civilians? What if the innocent civlians were in the west and not the middle east? "If a woman threw a bomb yesterday....and now, just because she doesn't carry any weapons at all, she's suddenly an "innocent."" There might be a difference, although fine, between throwing a bomb and acting as a shield. The rule is a good rule though because otherwise everyone is fair game. They need to be in uniform or actively participating in the conflict at the time. Its easy for us who dont have to ever worry about living through a war in our own neighbourhood to disregard the rule. Either way she would still be guilty of the war crime she had committed the few days earlier and be open to being arrested, charged and tried at an international court. Hey maybe some countries (cough the US) ought to stop blocking an attempt to create an effective permanent court. "Does this apply only to women?" No, it does not. It applies to all civilians. Also to be mentioned, I believe if the military personnel is not in uniform and not actively engaged in conflict (ie carrying a weapon or participating in military operations) at that instant he is not open to being killed. If not that is what the rule ought to be. Would it be acceptable for a Taliban fighter to snipe some Canadian soldier off-duty picking his son up from soccer practise? When thinking of what the law ought to be or whether it is acceptable try reversing the roles and how you would like yourself and our military personnel to be treated. "To think that only two women were killed when the Israeli soldiers open fired showed the soldiers practiced some restraints. They could've just easily mowed them all down with bullets just to get to the gunmen! That's civilized enough I'd say." So would I. If you go back and read my post I specifically said that what they did did not violate international law. That would imply that I thought their actions to be civilized enough. In this case I dont consider the deaths to be collateral damage because the women were actively engaged in the conflict. If they had not been Israeli actions would have resulted in collateral damage that was fully acceptable to the military necessity, in my opinion.

"It is time to stop thinking as a supporter of a political party and time to start thinking as a Canadian and a concerned citizen. Who values acountability over abuse." Excellant post. Lets start debating thing on their merits not on their partisan advantages.

"This morning on CBC radio...they gave honor to a Canadian soldier(?) who fought during the American-Canadian war....and they mentioned that he also killed some civilians. BUT CBC was quick to add and justify that, that was the "war of the time." There were no legal documents that restricted how wars ought to be fought. The absence of such documents at that time makes it different. How could he break laws if the laws didnt exist yet? "Eh? What's different from then and now?" Two world wars, a holocaust both having massive effects on civilian populations. The world had to reevaluate the concept of what is acceptable in war in light of the atrocities of the world wars. Things like the holocaust and carpet bombings of civilian areas were both considered things that OUGHT not to happen. Its a moral decision. "War, is war! Everybody wants to play to win!" Nobody is saying you cant play to win in war. Just that maybe we can bring a little bit of "civilized" behaviour to war. Why do we check our morals at the door? In my opinion this is incredibly relevant today. If we are truly in a battle of "ways of lifes" by surrendering our morals we are only waving the white flag. The terrorists win when we dont fight with some level of morality.

"I cannot find the topic on Geneva Conventions....so let me say it here that I think, the Geneva Conventions Rules ought to be revised." Nope. I think the actions taken here are already within the law of jus in bello, or the laws governing how wars are allowed to be fought. The women in this case were clearly participating in the armed conflict and not innocent bystanders and therefore in this instance not considered to be "civlians" as defined by the Geneva Conventions. At anytime a civilian is involved in the armed conflict they are considered fair game. During the time they are actively participating they can be the object of attack but at the time they stop being actively involved they may no longer be considered the object of attack. This means the army couldnt go shoot the women a few days later when theyre picking some bread up at the marketplace. article 51(7) to Additional Protocol I of the Genevan Conventions: "the presence or movements of the civlian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attack or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civlian population or individual civlians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military objectives" The only crime being committed here is by the Palestinians. Either they are not respecting the above rule or these women are committing the crime of perfidy by using civilian clothes to mask themselves. Take your pick, both are "War Crimes"

Do we run the risk of getting a third choicer in though by 'accident'? For example: 49% CPC first choice, Bloc Quebecois 2nd 49% Liberal first choice, Bloc Quebecois 2nd 2% Bloc first choice, Green 2nd Despite the Bloc having very little strong support, they could be elected on a compromise. Questionable what this would mean mandate wise. The argument would be no one voted for the winner. Obviously a real example would be much more complex... but this one illustrates a flaw. All of the ranking systems in practise that I know of would not allow for this to happen. For starters a vote is only "transferred" if it isnt used to elect a member. If your second choice is for the Bloc but your first vote is needed to elect a CPC or a liberal than the Bloc doesnt get your vote. It gets complicated though. If a Liberal has 1000 more votes than he/she actually needs to get elected each person who chose the liberal first has their second vote transferred on an appropriate ratio scheme. All these ranking electoral system have mulit-member ridings as for as I know. In your example I dont think it would be possible to get a Bloc MP. If, for example, it was a 4 MP riding the CPC and Liberals would each win 2 seats and nothing would transfer to the Bloc because there wouldnt actually be any unused or "wasted"vote. Now if it was an odd number of MP riding I think it might get complicated and the Bloc could take ONE seat. This would probably be fair though because they have fairly large support even if only 2% pick them as their first choice. These systems take into account intensity of feeling, allow you to vote strategically etc. Very fun for politic nerds

O'Reilly is a simple fool. A hundred or so years ago there was no country called Iraq. It is something the Brits cobbled together to suit themselves. It took a despot to hold it together. No brutal despot, and all the factions that had their own little fiefdoms for centuries start to fly apart again. What does win mean to O'Reilly? The perpetuation of an artifical state? The man's a bad joke. Figleaf: Faux News. I love it. Although I completely agree with your assessment I wonder what the consequences of breaking up this "artificial state" would be. Could separate Iraqi states live in peace? Would they be vulnerable to neighbours in the region such as Iran? Would they be vulnerable to strong man leadership that would make Saddam look like a nice guy? Would they provide a haven for terrorist groups attacking the other former Iraqi states and/or the west? Are they not likely to produce even more regional instability and encourage more US intervention?

"Because of the potential for long term adverse effects" I dont think we can argue that the effects are only potential. Whether or not its man made or natural global warming will have very large effects on our world. In BC we are already getting hit by the pine beetle which has destroyed forests about the size of Ireland and showing no signs of slowing. This is going to be a pretty tough hit for the BC economy.