theloniusfleabag

Dear KK and Mr. Read, I would also point out that Turkey did not want to be seen as an occupying force in Iraq. The Kurds are poised to secede from part of their country as well. Then they were also faced with the problem of being seen as abetting the 'great satan' in attacking Muslims. No matter how many billions the US may have promised them, it would still look like 30 pieces of silver. You will note, that: 1: the US and coalition have no interest in 'freeing the Kurds' from either the rule of Iraq or Turkey, for the northern oilfields are huge, and (inconveniently for the Kurds) lie on 'traditional Kurdish lands'. 2: The US still desires approval from the UN, even though they dismissed them as 'irrelevant'. I suspect that the UN has, in this case, been relegated to the position of 'investment consultant' and needs them to show the reluctant nations 'what a good deal investing in Iraq' would be. Thank goodness Canada has not decided to increase wealth by forcible invasion.

Canada, the EU and the US practice this everyday,and dominance in every capacity is the mantra of the US. They just haven't published a how-to manual yet.

Dear Mr. Read, P.E.I has some of the best darned spuds in the country. The also receive way less in the form of largesse that does Newfoundland or the First Nations. I don't subscribe to any notion of 're-zoning' any of them. I think you'll find no support amongst Canadians on the P.E.I thing.

Dear Mr. Read, The US 'coalition of the willing' received the nickname 'coalition of the coerced' for good reason. The coalition grew in numbers more from the active 'begging and threats' than it did from any cogent argument for the case. Of the 35 countries 'freed' you and others refer to, were they freed from oppression, or of the resopnsibility of governing (and profiting from) their own resources? Which ones would they be? I will gladly search for their own accounts and not CNN or Turner Broadcasting spins. Africa, you say. I'm sure those people beheaded (or is it de-headed) by US sponsored rebel groups in Angola with the sole purpose of 'spreading terror' will be glad when the fighting is over, no matter who wins. As General Von Moltke said, " The greatest kindness one can offer in war is to bring it to a speedy conclusion".

An amendment: I apologize for an error, it was Hugo that started this thread, and I posted "Dear Mr. Read". Sorry for the confusion, I almost always post from memory and I am getting old. (over 36 now!) To reply to the last post of Hugo, I would like to say that good and bad, right and wrong are relative to humans, and that there is only one absolute. Some call it 'truth', some call it 'existence', and truth is "That which does BE". Since I have no religious or nationalistic bent, I would only wish to become upon this earth a "Be-er".

Dear Hugo, While I am definitely playing 'left wing', I do appreciate your constructive way of criticizing. in regards to #1: The number of resolutions and the fact that there were some is moot. The UN cannot enforce them until it, as a governing body, is revamped. 14 is a pittance compared to Israel, yet I will not criticize Israel for having dozens against them. Further, that fact (of the 14) was never a key issue for the US/UK coalition's case to invade. If they used that parameter for justification for invasion, they would have gone after Israel first. #2. While this is indeed a critical issue, most of those deaths were Kurds, including the use of WMD's. The Kurdish question is a sticky one, for they desire to secede. They also would have taken the northern oil fields with them. Both Iraq and Turkey (and the US) covet them, and it would be no surprise for any one of them to use force to quell a seccesionist movement. The use of poison gas, though, should have been severely reprimanded. #3. Forgive this cheekiness, but: why didn't the teamster organize unions there to improve wages and collective bargaining? Aside from the fact that unions are communist, and would have been deplored by both Iraq and the US, neither can forsee profit being squeezed out of the Iraqis through unionization. Seriously, though, I think poverty is a different animal and not central to the concerns of the invasion. 4:You are right. Embargoes hurt the people, not the gov't. Just like fines against large corporations, the execs won't suffer, the small shareholder and employees will. So, what would I do as a leftist? The UN is in dire need of an overhaul. I would ask the UN to formalize a military contingency plan, and demand that each member nation place at it's disposal a percentage of those member's military, to be used with discretion. If the UN were also to get rid of the veto system, democracy could legitimately decide what we all value. The UN could have gone into Iraq with full support of it's member nations, rather than being held ransom for the interests of the few or the one. (I mean that as a reference to TotalFinaElf's ability to influence the position of France).

Wow, a thread where everyone is right! Dear Hugo, you are right in the fact that it is not religious tenet that drives 'man to murder man'. "Kill them all, God will know His own" was an actual 'church' edict. Logic and reason are what separates man from the animals, and to a certain degree religion itself casts those aside. Throughout history it was basically for accumulation of wealth and power. The 'big three' religions without a doubt have killed more numbers, accrued more wealth, and sought to spread it's dogmas by force waaaaaay more than any one nation or individual ever will. Solution: Learn from the past and carry nothing forward that leads to death.

Dear Mr. Read, I whole heartedly agree with your original post about moral relativism. The only thing I would nitpick about, is that last sentence. Certain aspsects of one culture may be superior, in a relative way, but that does not make the entire culture superior. I think we'd all see the value in coverting to buddhism if that were the case. Ethical relativism carries exactly the same pitfalls, yet far too many countries cling to it. Multi-culturalism, while serving to temper relativism, is only flawed because the gov't wastes money to promote it, when it should and can stand on it's own merits. I think the same should go for Quebec. I think it was Eugene Fossey who said," No one can deny Quebec is a distinct society. So is Newfoundland".

I would think that there is a snowball's chance in hell of the alliance ever coming into power on their own. Their only choice above dissoultion is merger. The Reform party had it's chance, for it addressed the issue of having a responsible gov't, on many levels. However, Preston Manning did not have charisma, and Stockwell Day had no brains. (perhaps they both have gone to see the wizard) The PC's are still recovering from the damage Brian Mulroney did, and that recovery may yet happen if they choose not to merge with anyone, lest they be seen as capitulators in a time of independent identity struggle. The Liberals keep winning, though, for two reasons. 1. 'The devil you know is better than... mentality' 2. They are willing to maintain social programs even when their own mis-management makes socialism appear to be a bad thing. The key factor, though, is that most Canadians are indeed socialists at heart. That is what makes us different from a lot of countries, including the US. We have a stong work ethic, vast resources AND we have a sense of caring for our fellow man. Most of us only wish our gov't would stop being such boneheads, so we could prove without a doubt that properly managed democratic socialism is THE template for national governance.

Dear Mr. Read, If market forces were left alone to dictate the direction of industry, farming would cease and so would human life. Maximizing profits of wheat etc. have little real possibility, for food is a neccesity. Costs cannot be reduced by sourcing out land availability. To some degree, subsidization enables real needs to be met, freeing other monies for investments in wants. It is nice to have an SUV, but it is not nice to have to trade one for a loaf of bread. I also grow weary of hearing childish name-calling in every one of your posts, and it only serves to weaken your arguments, and belittle your intelligence.

Welfare, as it exists, should be ended. I see it's abuses everyday, and truly a 'welfare mentality' is a vicious circle. I truly feel a 'work for welfare program' can and should be implemented. Almost anyone in society can contribute something, for single moms with 5 kids can logically be daycare workers. The gov't gives out free rides as a collective conscience salve for the taxpayer. As to the role of gov't in a society, as logical1 has questioned, those who adhere to the 'right wing' all abhor gov'ts and any social interaction above negotiation. The 'right wing' feels that without gov't intervention, everyone could become "responsible anarchists" and all would be well. Unfortunately, humans enter the equation and that notion, however noble and correct, becomes impossible.

Dear Cameron, You have hit upon the crux of the religious issue. I think all religions should be tried in a court of law. If they are to be used for a basis of law, that basis must be proved. If there is no provable basis, the religion should be removed from the law. Not so in Islam, I'm afraid, for questioning God is a 'hangin' offence' for they believe that there is no worse thing one could do. God, to them, is so far above human life that murdering another person is nothing compared to insulting god. A noble concept, but hardly 'just'. Israel is currently, and arguably, occupying territory strictly on the basis that "G-d said we could have this". How could that ever be proven in court?!! But they can if it is their religion that is tied to the basis of law that created the courts. Same goes for Islam. If you read the Koran, (It takes a long time because of all the possible translations from sanskrit, and even then the Muslims say only the sanskrit version, untranslated, is the 'true word of god') you will find that they did believe the Jews were the 'chosen people' but have since disobeyed god (or Allah). Most religion is based on rules and regulations of what to eat and when, etc. The Koran itself tried to be the most comprehensive in 'laying down the law' with rules and regs for all facets of daily life, eliminating free will, to a certain degree. The hebrew way is to have rabbis interpret the torah and talmud to cover those pesky daily questions like "Is it ok for a Jew to dress up as santa claus?' ( The answer was :as long as the costume is not complete, it would be ok. If one did not wear the hat, for example. And if one does wear a hat, it cannot be green, for that is the colour of Islam." It is, in my opinion, the biggest un-addressed issue in the world today is "Which religion is right? Or is it none? The answer would be closest to "Which religion includes and respects all things?

Dear Sir Riff, Well said. The last sentence basically defines this thread and many arguments on others. While the starter of this thread does not believe America is or should be altruistic, it should be noted that American Media does it's best to portray the image that they are. Another example of how 'mass delusioned, self-proclaimed altruism works was Panama. The entire world was against it, voted to issue a UN directive against it, and the American media did not say a word to the American people about it. (with the noted exception of 1 major news station that had a 10 second sound byte "In other news, the UN security council voted overwhelmingly to call the invasion of Panama a 'flagrant violation of international law')

Dear Mr. Read, I am deeply saddened and hurt that you would call me an idiot and a jerk. No, wait, I don't care what you think. America has but one aim, global domination. That is not 'so they can make the world better for all', it is so America can grow fatter and richer. They are not the only ones, to be sure, but they are the most recent to use military force to acheive it on such a scale. Africa has many problems which cause them to remain poor, I would say 'tribalism' remains the #1 factor. However, foreign aid etc. is not the 'cause', it is an enabler to the dictators. My brother worked in a few African nations for a few years and advised me and everyone he knows to NEVER send money or supplies because a least 50% gets siphoned off to whatever military is running that country at that time. Sudan is but one example, where a Canadian company, Talisman Energy, had development projects in that country, but sold their interests because it was found out that the monies they paid to the Gov't were being used to buy bullets which were used to 'rid the land of pesky farmers' who were there first. The people of that country would not have their 'lot in life' improved one bit by this development, for the profits would go to only two places: 1. back to North America and Talisman, 2. to fund the militia to suppress any notion of democracy or freedom, for those might get in the way of the profit flow. Now, to be fair, Talisman did build schools and hospitals, (one each, I think), but it is hardly an acceptable trade to say, "Take your pick, you can move elsewhere and go to the nice shiny school we built, or we will have you killed". PS, I hate TV as well, and what America used to offer in terms of profundity of gifts, has become obscured and choked with that pond scum you refer to.

Dear FastNed, Wrong, totally wrong. Unrestricted warfare started with the caveman, and it is a sad testimony that we have not risen above it yet. (When I say we I mean all mankind) The US has in the past used the threat 'genocide or assimilation' with successful results. Lots of other cultures have too. Many have come and gone. Some (including new ones like the US) are still experimenting. Those are also NOT the 3 choices, as you see them, being offered by Islamic 'terrorists'. For if they were, that would be 'war' and not 'terrorism'.

You are right, KK, Causing the death of innocents is one of the most henious crimes one can commit. Rather than place blame, we should be offering solutions.

Dear all, My condolences to the victims is sincere. I will apologize for the reference to 'Happy'. It is my contention that the US, and 'the 'American Way', can be directly attributed credit for, or implicated in, all those deaths mentioned above. I guess I am becoming too 'Americanized', for I have used 'shock value' with no regard for morality to profit for myself.

I offer my condolences to those victims and their families that were murdered in New York on this day, 2 years ago. I also offer my condolences to those people murdered on this day 30 years ago, in Chile. The US helped murder a democratically elected leader and aided and abetted the takeover by a brutal dictator to control that country for more than 20 years, by the name of Augusto Pinochet. All murder is wrong.

Dear FastNed, If one is a victim of a crime, one should have the right to speak in one's own defence. One should be able to seek justice. One should not, howver, be able to take the law into one's won hands and one should also not be able to be the sole judge of the definition of justice. The world was behind the US immediately after 9/11, but the actions of the US before and after(except Afghanistan) have left a very sour taste in the mouths of most of the world.

Dear FastNed, I would say you are close in you theory of American posturing in S. Korea but not exactly right. The linch-pin has become Taiwanese independence. 'Mao' and 'ists' chased Chiang Kai-Shek to Formosa and seek to finally win that battle. The US may be able to let S Korea fall to the North, but China still calls the shots and their 'eye on the prize' is chastising the 'naughty province' of Taiwan. The US would not let that go without combat and the US doesn't produce enough bullets to take on a nation of 1+ billion. It would almost be more humane to use nukes. The US is practicing inderdiction techniques in the region, not for protecting S Korea, but for Taiwan. THAT would not be construed as a regional matter. Confrontation between the Koreas is merely the sideshow.

Dear Mr Read, It is to laugh that one could be so blind to how the world is. You say: "While trade makes people richer, everywhere not just in the rich world, it often promotes political liberalization in developing countries. In dictatorships, the pro-democracy fighters lead the fight to free trade, knowing open borders can liberate their countries from poverty and oppression. The benefits of free trade shouldn't be limited to a small club of rich democracies." Yet the US actively supports dictators to ensure that those 'pro-democracy fighters' get squashed because they threaten the profits to 'the small club of rich democracies'. Read a little, Craig, especially about Central America. See how well someone fares when they threaten a US multinational's profits. Especially if the brother of a CIA director is a major shareholder and board of director on one of those multi-nationals. How you twist things. I am also both appalled and amused that how freely you use racial slurs to replace cultures, rhetoric to replace logic, and infantile name-calling in the place of honest debate. I'd like to print off your last post, to use it to it's fullest value, but I'm afraid of getting a paper cut on my backside.

Dear KK, I will try to inject a little seriousness into your question, for some could happen. 1. Are you talking- the US pulls out of supporting the road map? Or are you talking the US stops funding Israel to the tune of 1+ billion cash and 8+ in loan guarantees and military hardware? What about Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Would the US have to stop 'enabling' Islamic terrorists as well? I would say that: if the US withdraws it's push for the 'roadmap', the status quo would remain, and perhaps slowly accelerate the mutual destruction, but the Palestinians would feel betrayed. If they pulled funding (from both sides) I would say:I would expect escalation to the point of 'The Samson Option'. 2. The UN would have to have a vote, should the US cede operational control in Iraq, Canada or the Brits would finally be able to produce some results. . The US military, renowned for its hardware, is equally renowned for incompetence. 3. Arafat could pick Mohhamed himself to run the terror groups, but they would still do what they want with blind hatred, infighting and ignorance. I can't believe Israel didn't have the guts to eliminate Arafat when they had him holed up in his compound last year. It must have been a case of "better the devil you know than the one you don't" 4. "Ahnohld" Schwartzeneggerkopf (when elected 'Guv') would take on all the Palestinians single-handed and still get the girl. #4 sounds like the best case scenario.

"Rene Descarte was a drunken old fart, I drink therefore I am" : Monty Python. George W Bush has stated in a presedential security directive that the US, can and will use tactical nuclear weapons wherever and whenever they see fit. Perhaps a bit of bluster, for that would justify nuclear weaponry usage by everyone. No one would survive. (Some indeed may be able to live out their natural lives underground, but existence on planet earth would be doomed) MAD uses this as a deterrent, but the sabre rattling is the telling gambit. "Don't attack me or I'll kill us all" is a lot different than "Do as I say or I'll kill us all" NK is a far stickier wicket that Iraq was. I would wager that the US knew all along that Iraq had no WMD's, but is unsure of the repercussions of conflict with NK. As for military strategy, I could kick anyone's butt at any 'game' involving strategy, except maybe chess, because I am quite rusty.

Dear Craig and Hugo, To say America's #1 priority is the defence of liberty and freedom is laughable. (Re:Craigs post) They have ONLY the US' interests in mind. The US will gleefully fund, train and support a dictator, as they have in the past, if it is in the interests of the US to do so. For example, Tienamen square. Cries for help to establish democracy in a brutal dictatorship? What happened? Those that crushed democracy were REWARDED for quelling the 'uppity slaves' that produce profitable goods for US companies. So it is said that the US makes mistakes, so what? Everyone does? Not too many countries that invade others for their own benefit under tha auspices of 'bringing freedom' illegally invade other countries and then say "oops, that might have been a mistake". Panama was not a mistake. Supporting brutal dictators in Liberia, Angola, the Phillipines, Indonesia, for years, are these all mistakes? US multinationals made billions from the actions of these dictators, with US help. Will they give the money back because they were 'mistaken'? Note, if you will, the complete support the US received when going into Afghanistan after Al-Queda. Canadian troops, who have served with distinction,are still there, as are others. No question that it was the right thing to do. Iraq? Very, very questionable. Yet the US acted as though they were beyond questioning. I question this invasion, and others, such as Panama, for the actions of the US reek to the high heavens. I fully supported them in Afghanistan, though. Weird.

I believe that the entire judicial system, both in Canada and the US, must be revamped for the betterment of society, and that statement must therefore include the Young Offenders Act. Criminals must repay society, not the other way around. Their repayment should also be twofold. Not only should reparations be made (such as Lost in Manitoba's post about the value of community service) but also they should earn their keep in prison. I find it ridiculous that it costs the taxpayer money to keep dangerous criminals in prison, to the tune of $50,000 plus per year, when that is more than my household brings in! After taxes, it probably takes 3-4 average working Canadians ENTIRE wage to keep 1 violent offender in prison. The watchword (or phrase) of today's society is 'dodge the responsibility' for one's actions, when the only real way to avert future generations from crime to to place responsibility where it belongs. On the individual. That must include young offenders. My solution would be to 'job out' corrections Canada to the military. Many agree that the worst kind of prison, a prison one would not like to go back to, is military prison. Not because they abuse prisoners, but because they tolerate no abuse from prisoners. Boot Camps, such as the ones being experimented with in the US, are merely an extension (or first line of defence for society) of this notion. If I must work to earn my daily bread, when I have not wronged society, why should those who have done so be paid by society? Gulag is a harsh word, yet Canada has many nothern islands that could be used to 'set people on the right path', to one of self-responsibility. If we want to reintegrate criminals into society, they must prove that they are capable. Make prisons and 'Juvy halls' into mini-societies, where if they can function in one, they can function in the other. No release until they pass. Whether that be a high-school diploma or a trade. Something that benefits and pays back society, and allows them to function, or they have greater problems that should be addressed by another format. Otherwise, the 'corrections system' has failed. It doesn't have to be cruel, just harsh reality. The rest of us have to face it.