theloniusfleabag

Dear August1991, Actually, the thief has created wealth. (and not moved it from elsewhere in the pie). If a thief breaks in to your home, and say, steals $100 cash and your vcr, lots of people benefit. The insurance company gets business, (they simply up your rates to recover the cost of your claim) the police get business, and the alarm company gets your business (if you go out and get one to help prevent further robberies). The thief is now $100 dollars (tax free) richer, and will spend that money freely, helping the economy. The vcr, however, will get de-valued as it will be sold to a pawn shop for about 10% of its value. That would be the only loss in the equation.

Dear takeanumber, Conversion? While it is true that Osama offered it to the people of the US, and volunteered to be thier teacher, he did not do so because he aims to 'convert the west'. He did so because the Koran states that it is wrong to kill your enemy without first giving them a chance to convert. As to the foreign policy bit, I can only assume that, for whatever reason, you have no knowledge of what and whom the US supports to enrich itself. For example, a Calgary based company, Talisman, recently sold off it's drilling operations in a certain African country. Why? Public ostracism. It was evident that the profits it made and paid to the local gov't were being used to kill and oppress the local populace to enable the extraction of oil. The US has no such qualms, and regularly supports brutal dictatorships to help it achieve it's goals. As to the question 'Am I serious?', I am not saying Osama is acting in self defence. I am saying he believes it, and a growing number of Muslims do too. You don't have to agree that self-defence is the case, but you should know the motivations of your 'enemy', and not misconstrue their actions to fit you beliefs. That is a recipe for disaster. Read 'Imperial Hubris' by 'Anonymous', it is the clearest account of what is happening. The alternative title is "Why the west is losing the war on terror'.

Dear August1991, I will take up this gauntlet, August1991. First, I would like to 'clarify' a couple of items. Cuba is not a fair test of 'marxism'. The US embargoed it severely, and thereby tainted any test it might have otherwise succeeded or failed. Democracy vs. dictatorships ( in which I would I would place 'monarchy') and free enterprise vs Marxism are two different animals. That is why 'Marxism-Leninism' are always coupled together, to clarify. They do not belong together. Only democracy and marxism represent 'equality'. The hunger for wealth and power are championed by 'free enterprise' and dictatorship. Now, all that rhetoric aside, I am 'left', yet a business owner. I believe the state can be 'a force for good' (You may have to clarify what you believe to be 'good') if it encourages free enterprise in the 'right' direction. The only non-intrusive way for a gov't to do this is through tax breaks. If, for example, a company was given a choice of :give Tiger Woods 20 million to hawk a product, where they can write off the 20 mil as an Advertising expense, OR, the 20 mil could go to a local hospital, infrastructure or whathaveyou, (things that the gov't itself spends money on), and gave a 1.1-1 tax break on it, it might encourage business to focus on the needs of society as a whole, rather than just serving the [free enterprise] system itself. Just a small example, but the point would be for the gov't to take a hand in the direction business profits go, with everyone the better.

Dear takeanumber and August 1991, Quite simply, Osama (and those that follow him) are acting in what they believe to be 'self-defence'. Many seem to believe 9/11 to be an act of 'aggression', directed at stopping 'freedom and democracy' in the USA. It is important that you understand that this is not the case. You'll never win if you support that rubbish. Unfortunately, even in North America, if you defend yourself against a would-be robber (by punching his lights out, say) you could be charged for your 'aggressive' act. Is self-defence a form of aggression? Can Terrorism be considered a legitimate form of self-defence? Is 'self-defence', as Osama claims, the case here? Can the notion of 'self-defence' be used by a country or a religion?

Dear JWayne625, I would think that there are a few factors in this besides 'informed decisions'.Sexual physical development begins around 14, give or take, and kids are curious by nature. They will have 'sexual activity' because they want to experiment, not because they 'are mature enough to enter a loving relationship'. If they do 'experiment', at the age of 15-17, it could be considered any of a gamut of 'sexual deviance' charges, from rape to sexual interference to you name it. There has to be an age limit, to be sure, to protect children. However, to suggest that the state make it 'illegal' for two 17 yr olds to engage in sex after prom night, well, good luck. Perhaps they could raise the age to 18, but expect it to be widely ignored. The solution lies in the home.

Dear August1991, Very close. I believe the use of might is wrong. However, I will grant that it could possibly be used as a 'last resort'. While you may try to simplify my comparison into that which you wish to see, I think there are lessons to be learned from them and if those lessons aren't learned, we're all f*#ked. Colonialism and inperialism are just another form of totalitarianism, both the British Empire and The USA today are guilty of thinking that it is their 'right' to bring their ways of life to those who don't want it. August1991, you had called democracy 'bad'. You claim totalitarianism is 'bad'. That leaves anarchy as the only plausible substitute. Bad. I would be more than happy to throw my support behind the USA if they actually stood for the things they claim. Instead, I bash them when I can, for I hate liars and hypocrites. (not all the people of the US of course, just the ones in charge of foriegn policy, who claim to be 'spreading the goodness, while killing other people and raping their land)

Dear takeanumber, I have read some of Bin Laden's statements, I have read Saddam's open letters to the People Of The United States, and I have read Imperial Hubris. They all say the same thing. Freedom and Democracy are NOT under attack in the US. Bin Laden himself said (in one of his letters to the people of the US) "use your democracy to change your leadership and end oppression in the middle east and Africa."It has nothing to do with what freedoms exist in North America. Go out and read Imperial Hubris, for the author (as a CIA Middle East specialist) not only identifies what the real issues are, he also offers solutions that may yet avert further attacks. He is pro-american, but he can call a spade a spade from his immense experience.

Dear takeanumber, You are wrong. My only suggestion can be that you open you eyes while you lie, so you can be in on the joke. Freedom and democracy are not under attack, US foriegn policy is. You may disagree with the methods, as do I, but to be blind of the factors means you will never see the solution.

Dear August1991, Let's draw some parallels, here shall we? The independence fight for Chechnya against the Russians vs. the independance fight of the US against the British. -Both the Chechens and the 'Americans' were fighting an 'underdog battle'. -Both of the underdogs employed the 'unconventional' and (thereby viewed as 'ungentlemanly') methods of guerilla warfare. -Both of the underdogs were willing to slaughter women and children to achieve their aims (Albeit the US did so to suppress, and exact vengeance upon, the Aboriginal peoples, not the British) -Both of the underdogs wanted to be free of what they felt was an unfair, and 'imperialistic' or foriegn, occupation of 'their land'. Further, the US, in the past, employed such tactics as 'false white-flag surrender' as a battle tactic. (notably against the Seminole Chief Osceola, who had been engaged in guerilla warfare against the US himself. After being tricked by the white flag and captured, most of Osceolas' tribe were exterminated over the next couple of years.) Past history, to be sure, but if the US itself was created by guerilla warfare, deliberately targetting women and children, genocide and perfidy, who are they to judge?

Dear August1991, These are 'absolutes', with 100% meaning 'all' and the 1 meaning 'you' (or me) but not both.

Dear kimmy, I realize what the distinction is. However, the two are drawing closer, and the attitude of combined with 'the keeping of the status quo' and the occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan will only draw them closer still.

Dear easychair, I live in Calgary myself, and I love the city. It is close to the mountains, so camping, hunting and fishing are don't get much better. It is a relatively modern city, traffic is bad at rush hour, but otherwise it has one of the best roadway systems in the country. It is a culturally diverse and accepting city, almost every culture or country has a restaurant here. I own a small business in downtown Calgary, and while many of my customers are millionaires, you wouldn't sense it from talking to them. If you are considering moving to Calgary, do it soon. There is plenty of opportunity, but house values are on the rise, and Uban Sprawl is definitely a problem. However, many of the older communities are being 'revitalized' and many are both convenient and beautiful.

Dear takeanumber and August 1991, It would seem as though you are calling for a 'crusade', or war with the intention of the elimination of Islam. (This reminds me of a 'Kids in the Hall skit, where a 'white' taxi driver was talking to some other cabbies of 'African decent'. He said to them, "When I say 'niggers', I don't mean you guys, I just mean the 'bad niggers".)It has been said by some that this following quote is crap. (actually, not by some, it was by takeanumber). However, the notion of war against Islam can only be looked at pragmatically by me.Would it be a good thing in the long run? Would it be 'good enough' just to confront the tenets and authority of all the religions? Would it require the deaths of 1.3 billion Muslims? What would the cost be in terms of lives to 'the infidels'? I would guess the human cost would be 2-3 billion people. The world is overpopulated anyway, so a major cull could be helpful. What would happen to those non-muslim countries whom the west sees as a threat as well? Would atheistic China see this as their opportunity to expand? I would guess 'undoubtedly'. So, we might need to consider an extra 1 billion chinese to eradicate. Better save some bullets after the Crusade against Islam.

Dear August1991, Further to the idea of reasons the US would need to Invade, you had questioned in another thread, Alberta's oil wealth should be shared by all" or something similar. This smacks of nationalization of the industry (while I agree that we should keep all our resource benefits for the betterment of Canadians). How about if we said to the US, "no more oil, gas or water, we want the Canadian people to benefit from our own resources" The US would be massing it's tanks at the border faster than you can say "Nicaraguan Bananas".

Dear August1991, Sure it's far-fetched. However, don't forget, the US was confronted with the fact (I believe it came to light in the 80's) that they did have the "Canadian invasion plans" drawn up 'just in case'.It was funny, during the election this year, that a Marxist-Leninist candidate did hold a lead for a short time in one constituency. I joked about how GW Bush would have filled his drawers if Canada went Marxist. One of my customers replied, "No sh#t, they'd invade." Wackily enough, he is a corporate litigation lawyer.

Dear The Terrible Sweal, Canada has no 'special strategic needs' for a nuclear deterrent. No one but the US could invade us, and they wouldn't last a year if they tried. (Occupation forces, I mean) Otherwise, Canada threatening another country with nukes would just be 'being meddlesome'.

Dear easychair, I would have to agree that this would be a mighty large conspiracy theory. However, I would go so far as to say that there is evidence that the US knew beforehand about the attacks, and needed to allow them to happen. How is it that a US official bragged to the press "We knew Osama called his mother right after the attacks" and they knew nothing else?

Dear CANADIEN, Too true. Each have their own merits, and it is mostly geography that dictates what one will be brought up speaking. I learned a bit of Cantonese while I was a cook, and while it is difficult to learn, some of the language is 'superior' to English in ease of use. For example, there is no "Me, Myself and I". There is only 'Ngoh' which means 'the self'. Much more forgiving, grammatically.

Dear GLD, A very involved question. In North America, the parties are copied from British parliment. Even a few Whigs (short for the derrogatory term Whiggamore) had become US presidents. In short, though, I suggest reading some history, rather than relying on this forum for detailed answers.

One must assume, if one believes in only "Cogito ergo sum', that one's vote is also the only one. If one were to pretend that no other voters turned out, (due to overwhelming apathy) then your own vote is the swing vote. Small things make up big things. One may say that the individual vote is inconsequential, but this is not true. Try casting your vote for the Marxist-Leninist party next time. What if the majority did the same? It would be your last vote for a while.

Dear Anonimus, This is one of those cases where "truth is the first casualty of war". We'll have to see how it plays out. As it stands, the Russians may have lied, for there is no proof Arabs were involved. The CIA in the Caucasus, yes.

Dear August1991, Actually, the US were first committed to major action Nov. 7 1942, in the Torch landings in North Africa. Even the sinking of the Reuben James did not cause them to end their isolationism. Further, Germany declared war on the US first, as part of it's pact with Japan. Russia entered 'the war against fascism' in 1941, only because they were attacked and nearly over-run.

Dear idealisttotheend, Well said. Today I was listening to the song "The Ballad of the Green Berets" and in it there is the line 'Men who mean just what they say...'. I am not exactly sure when this ceased to be a value, I only know it has.

Dear August1991, I am not sure you are getting what I am saying. Certain states in the US have voted on bill such as the decriminilization of Marijuana, (Alaska and California, for example) and the death penalty (Florida and Texas, for example). I am not sure how this is an example of the 'weakness of democracy'. I also do not understand how the rest of your post applies to voting, unless you are one of those ultra-right wingers who believes in the abolishment of the gov't in favour of 'responsible anarchy'.

Dear August1991, I think you should go ahead with your thread. Democracy is 'bad' for a number of reasons, but it is still inherently good 'in principle'. The reason Canada's is so bad is that, as some say, we elect a 'dictator' every four years, and that 'dictator' says 'the people gave us a mandate to push our adgenda, regardless of what new information becomes available or whatever new situations arise'. Voting on bills, such as the US does, is more akin to true democracy, as the people have a more intimate say in policy. That system is imperfect also, for the 'majority opinion' on issues such as the death penalty can change with the winds, or one wrongful conviction.