theloniusfleabag

Dear Big Blue Machine, Good lord, what a hackneyed piece of claptrap you have written. No offence, and I really try to not criticize other posters on their ability, but this hardly makes sense. That is exactly the reason Bush gave, before the war. That is why our beloved PM Chretien said 'da proof is da proof, but regime change was not in the UN resolution'. Semantics here, really, but the US could not have 'fought the war better'. They crushed the Iraqi army.

Dear August1991, While you may be right with the European analogy, Hugo raised some good points. Afghanistan is still vehemently tribal. Iraq too, to a certain degree, for Hugo forgot the Kurds, but the main point is Less so with the UN than the US, for obvious reasons, but still, folly.

Dear DAC, Amen, brother, amen. If the Feds managed money properly, it would be very difficult, morally and public opinion-wise for Alberta to take the line of 'it's our money'. Since the vast majority can see the 'Feds' pissing away money as if it were free beer, it is equally hard for Alberta to say to Ottawa, 'take the money, you deserve it'.

Dear CANADIEN, I will take up your gauntlet, CANADIEN.Yes, I believe they are part of our national fabric. While history will show that the English and the French fought, what some would say, the battle for Canada. One won, one lost that battle. But they chose, through the drafting of the constitution, to create the notion of what is Canada together. Canada is based, therefore, (and to the chagrin of some) on acceptance and inclusion, rather than on 'Vae victis' and exclusion. North America is built solely on immigration. (To the chagrin of the 'Original Peoples!) All are Canadians, all (well, most) are contributing their taxes, efforts and delicious ethnic food to make Canada the great country that it is. If Mandarin, etc is to be excluded from the 'social fabric' by way of disallowing them to help shape the future, who wields the right? The English and the French decided they would both be included in the constitution, so who are they to shut the door? It should not be acceptable for only one of the two 'founding cutures' to decide on their own who else 'can join the club', and it would be even less 'right' for them both to enjoy the privilege and right of inclusion and deny the rest.

Dear CANADIEN, I think that the majority of Canadians enjoy having, and would sorely miss, Quebec and French as part of our culture. I myself have been calling to have Marcel Marceau as our next PM. He surely couldn't do a worse job that our recent PMs (last 40 yrs, anyway), anglo or francophone.

Dear Mr. Hardner, Indeed, this is what all must do if there ever is to be a solution. I think Nietzsche said something like 'only by removing one's self from reality can one dispassionately examine one's place in it' (to paraphrase, of course, and Nietzsche thought his 'direction of removal' was above)

Dear eureka, You are probably right. I hope others appreciate this 'gem' of open-mindedness, rather than branding you an 'apologist'.

Dear CANADIEN, OK, fair enough. Also, please note that I wrote my last post before reading your last post. Language only laws, racial(read:minority) hiring quotas, etc are inherently exclusive as well as inclusive, and therefore are 'misguided good intent' and must be abolished.

Dear CANADIEN, (And seabee) Don't listen to the bunk about 'Francophones owe a debt to the British anglos' for not subjugating the loser of a war. If Quebec pride is as strong as it seems, it will stand on it's own merit. Banks, gov't services, and some private sector business are all trying to accomodate several cultures and languages. Many ATMs in Calgary now have Chinese characters as well as French and English. Others have tellers or clerks that are multi-lingual. It is not through any 'debt' or spite that this is done, it is merely keeping up with the times.

Dear CANADIEN, I fully support anyone's rights to put whatever language they wish upon their own business sign. I disagree with the 'mandatory exclusion' of others, though.In Calgary, there are many businesses with frontage signs that I cannot interpret. From Sanskrit to Chinese to Cyrillic. I commend them, for they have decided that they do not care if such a policy deters my patronage. (It doesn't, by the way). There is no "english also' law. As it should be.

Dear stoker, Lol. Ok, I will clarify. These two things go together...

I suppose it could be argued that the NEP, and transfer payments, are a case of "From each according to his (it's) ability(resources), to each according to it's need".

"No one can deny that Quebec is, culturally and socialogically, a distinct society. So is Newfoundland". Eugene Forsey, from "A Life On The Fringe:The Memoirs Of Eugene Forsey (1990) Should language and culture be 'mandated by law', or allowed to live or die by it's own merit? I'd be willing to bet that Chinese (be it mandarin or cantonese) is now spoken by more of the Canadian population than French. Is the notion of keeping cultural heritage alive up to the individual (or the culture) or the Gov't? Markets should decide what language goes on a sign, not legislation.

Dear eureka, While slavery was indeed a black mark[sic] against the history of the US, it was the status quo at the time. I do not hold this against the US in particular, however, the most damning thing is that they were the last 'first world nation' to abolish it, and worse, many in the southern US would gladly have it back.

Dear stoker, Sorry, I thought you were implying that the offer came after Saddam was in custody.As to the rest of your post, I am not sure what you mean.

Dear stoker, I would expect the judge to win. Bear in mind, Saddam's offer was a couple of years ago, (well before 9/11) while he was still in power, so it would have been from one 'leader' to another. Nothing whatsoever. it was a response to

Dear August1991, The question is not what I believe, it is what Osama, and now a growing number of Muslims, believe. I did not use the term, nor imply, 'mole'. I was talking about the fact that the US had 'de facto', 'bugged Osama's phone' (to analogize simply). If you substitute Churchill's name with Mr. Bush, does this render you argument 'silly'? I whole-heartedly agree with this fact. It is Bin Laden and the Islamists who argue that they are not given the same lattitude to decide their own future. It is the export of democracy they have a problem with. Iraq and Afghanistan will never be democratic unless the people of those countries themselves want it and fight for it. The actions of the US (foriegn policy-wise) are often directly opposite of human rights standards. It is this hypocrisy that the US must admit before it can hope to keep things going the way they are. They either have to change that policy, or admit that they support tyrannical dictatorships and do so more strongly.

Dear stoker, All of the above, with the possible exception of Reagan, who was just George Sr.'s marionette. I think George Jr.'s refusal to publicly debate Saddam Hussein arose in part because Saddam would have cut him to pieces.Bin Laden has written open letters (as did Saddam) to the people of the US stating their motives, intentions and dogma. Most of it never makes western Media because it is not in line with what the US wants it's people to believe. However, if you can take what these people say as their true intentions, it is open for some debate. Bin Laden has openly stated he wants to end 6 specific US foriegn policies, according to 'anonymous', author of 'Imperial Hubris' which OBL calls 'anti-muslim. 1. US support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israeli's thrall 2. US and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula 3. US occupation if Iraq and Afghanistan 4. US support for Russia, India and China against their Muslim militants 5. US pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices (artificially) low 6. US support for apostate, corrupt and tyrannical Muslim governments. Keep in mind, OBL has said himself, the US is not hated for their values, but for their actions.

Dear stoker, The apparent contradiction is perfectly plausible. Bush would be favoured by OBL at the polls because he is a slow-witted enemy leader. (I have seen enough 'behind the choreographed scenes' looks at Bush to stand by the slow-witted comment).An attack by OBL might indeed cause Bush to win as he would, by default, gain center-stage to condemn the attack and rally the 'American electorate' through further propaganda and mis-information. But, neither influencing the election nor 'attacking freedom and democracy', is OBL's aim.

Dear Agust1991, How far down? What has the farmer done to 'own the surface' that he did not do to own what is underneath?

Dear Stevenpfo, Oddly enough, my first name is Steven. However, I never said it did not affect him. It could have affected him greatly, and he was 'disabled for life' to boot. It's just that times have changed, and the response to PTSD has gone from 'no sh#t, Dick Tracy' to 'oh you poor dear, we exempt and absolve you from further responsibilty". Patton slapped a man silly for being shell-shocked and called him a coward. I thought that was a bit extreme, but one can see how Patton's actions would have been viewed today. I believe you are first-class citizens, with one of the toughest jobs to be found anywhere. But, yes, I think you are asked to put opinions and morals aside when asked to do a job (like pull a trigger and kill another human being) that is deemed necessary by the gov't.

Dear August1991, You are dancing very close to commie-nism here. I am surprised. Why would 'above vs. below' ground resources be any different? Should the 'farmers land' above an oil deposit belong to all Canadians too? You might as well (we all should) ask "What is a border anyway?If Alberta (or Quebec) wants to secede, it will probably have to be done by force of arms, the traditional standby that defines 'property ownership'. Many have said, "If the people of Quebec want to separate, let them. They just can't take any Canadian land with them". It is like a teenager leaving home, they cannot take their bedroom with them.

Dear August1991, Ask someone who feels under-paid. This would depend on the case. The benefits may not yet be tangible, but one is working toward some 'change'. The definition it would give from 'in of itself' would be 'failure'. So, it may be 'morally relative' to work towards 'failure', but I would call it 'crazy'.

Dear eureka, You did indeed post some very valid questions. While the Tribal Pashtun or 'mujahideen' were firing random mortar shells in Kabul against the Soviets, they were known in the west as 'freedom fighters'. Now that they are fighting (perceived) US-led occupation, the same action is called 'terrorism'. Yet the goals of the Afghanis haven't changed. They are still tribal, muslim, and xenophobic. This is why they view any outsider taking up residence, or trying to change their 'political system',as the enemy. As August1991 states: . But he forgets a few important facts about these events. As for 'moral relativism', the Dresden and Hamburg bombings were acts of terrorism, by definition. The UK (especially Arthur 'Bomber' Harris) believed that terrorism was a justifiable tactic against the 'enemy', some 80,000 civilians (per city). As for coventry, Winston Churchill decided not to evacuate the city even though he knew the attack was coming, so as not to alert the Germans that 'Enigma' had been broken. He sacrificed his own people, albeit 'for a greater good'. I wonder if '9/11' was allowed to happen like this. There is evidence to support this. In the book "Imperial Hubris", the author has made call for treason charges related to 'leaked information' regarding just how far communications amongst al-Qaeda had been compromised. One senior US official bragged to the press "We know Bin Laden called his mother right after the attacks". So, just how much impetus for war-making in Iraq would there have been if the US had simply arrested 19 men with box-cutters at the airport and prevented the attacks? Further, the US is now bragging that they are 'very close to capturing Bin-Laden". It has been charged that the US already has Bin Laden, and is waiting to bring him forth just before the US elections, the 'ace-in -the-hole' for Bush's campaign. Would it be 'morally acceptable' for Bush to use such a tactic? Or just 'Morally relative" and thereby tactically genius? Conspiracy theories aside, we are fighting this battle on the wrong plane[sic]. Even the Islamists believe

Dear I Miss Reagan, Yes, i suppose you are right, it is just the Russian leadership, not the people, who have a 'different outlook'.