theloniusfleabag

Dear Hugo, Because popular approval solidifies (and bestows the right to) the overwhelming force to make it happen, with little or no opposition. Very well, Hugo, I will admit defeat on this point. Semantics clouds the issue, where you call it theft and I call it taxes. I must admit it is the forcible (or aquiescent, and in some extermely rare cases, voluntary) taking of someone else's 'property'. It is, or can only be, justified by 'ends justifying means'.That being said, it is vital to gov't to use this tax money to run the gov't, (though the gov't shouldn't be so bloated, self-serving and wasteful), and it is vital to have a gov't to rule the people.

Dear Black Dog, Many believe it was the sole purpose for the sale. Check out ... http://www.globalsecurity.org/ Also, in the book "By Way of Deception", by Victor Ostrovsky, Israel evidently sold Iran it's (faulty) air-defense systems for their nuclear facilities. (though it was some time ago, they may have been upgraded)

Dear Argus, Greg has suggested that we all avoid 'feeding the troll'.

Dear Black Dog, I would expect it to come in the form of some of the 100 or so bunker-busters the US recently sold to Israel.

Dear shoop, Understandable. I was going to use the word 'fugue', and could have used the phrase "whatever it is that you're smoking", and my 'joke' was meant to convey the notion that there was a direct reference to your quote, and that for some reason (supernatural or otherwise) you missed it. lol. Again, the perhaps poor choice of one word has been interpreted by you (and incorrectly) as the entire meaning of my post. The religious reference of 'rapture' doesn't even appear in most dictionaries, and in my Webster's College Dictionary, definition #3 reads: 'the feeling of being transported to another place or sphere of existence'. The other definitions refer to 'ecstatic joy', so clearly, I could have used a better term. I believe for it to be a biblical reference it has to be preceded with the word "the", as in "The Rapture". I could be wrong, though, for I haven't read a bible for some time. It is a difficult read, especially the parts about Mr. and Mrs. Whom-begot.Again, back to Novak and Plame. Evidently Novak was the first person to print the claim that Plame was a CIA operative in the media, and his ludicrous defense at the time was the CIA's NO was "a soft no, not a hard no". As to BHS's claim that no crime was committed, even the CIA (along with almost everyone else) seems to think that there was. The following is an excerpt from an official letter from thr Director of Congressional Affairs, Stanley Moscowitz, to The Honorable John Conyers, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of representatives (30 January 2004) (this is taken from the book "The Politics of Truth", by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, (2004) Wilson claims that Novak spoke to an aquaintance of Wilson's in Washington, and when asked what Novak thought of the uranium contoversy and of Wilson, Novak replied: "Wilson's an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. The's a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him". When Wilson confronted Novak, Novak apologized (for telling a complete stranger his suspicions about Plame) and asked Wilson to confirm what he had heard from a CIA source. Later, Novak claims to have misspoken, and said it was 'two senior administration officials' that leaked the info.

Dear shoop, I don't believe you will find anything in any of my previous posts saying anything about the CPC being run by the 'religious right', and I did not intend that reference. I suppose all of this should really be under a 'Harper' thread, so I'll get back to how Novak, and possibly Rove, should be going to jail.

Dear Black Dog, Krusty went to start his own forum. I had been there for a bit, but at that time, dind't have a lot of time for posting. I'm sure you could find it on google, though. (And also Sweal's whereabouts)

Dear Black Dog, The ninny rears it's ugly head... For a while, I actually thought BHS was a competent right-winger capable of reasonable debate...my mistake. While the USA has not officially declared war since WWII, I know that the head of the air force (being only one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) can not unilaterally make a call such as that.eureka, Monty Python's song (I have that album!) in BD's quote can't really be usurped as the #1 appropos song, however I am also quite fond of Leslie Gore's "Sunshine & Lollipops", and "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang".

Dear shoop, It is directly related to your comments.. perhaps you were inspired by divine rapture and don't recall writing it. Not entirely correct, though perhaps the entire CPC isn't behind Harper on these issues. So I have 'proved the point' that the comparisons are not 'empty'. As to the CPC, I am somewhat 'conservative' myself. There are two reasons I haven't voted for them, though. My incumbent CPC MP is an unmitigated ass, and I don't believe Harper has what it takes to be PM(nor do the majority of canadians, obviously). I would like to see the Liberals gone, and believe the CPC would be the best alternative, but they need a new leader first. As to Novak and the Plame case, It would appear Novak is exercising his fifth amendement rights. Rove declared "Wilson's wife is fair game", and now those some few responsible are playing 'pass the grenade' without implicating the others. The only thing Novak could do without directly lying is to avoid the question altogether.

Dear shoop, Not entirely, for Harper said he would have joined 'the coalition of the coerced' and sent Canadian troops into Iraq without a second (or first) thought. Then, many 'conservatives' have stated that we should join the missile defense system, replace the UN with NATO, etc...In fact, if the Conservative party showed a little more pride in, and concern for Canada, instead of promising to 'drop their britches and bend over' at the whim of the US, they might even have a shot at the PMO. Just won't happen soon, with Harper in charge.

Dear BHS, Brilliantly argued. I'll go throw away my dictionaries. Seriously, without a formal declaration of war (which is legal), and a resolution authorizing invasion and deposition of the leader of a soveriegn nation, the US' actions were technically both illegal internationally and in the US. Incidentally, they had no legal right to invade Afghanistan either, but they did have world sympathy. Most expected that it would be OK if they 'crossed the 't's and dotted the 'i's after the fact in the UN. However, they squandered that sympathy with hubris and short-sighted arrogance. Your 'half-witty' replies do little to address fact.

Dear crazymf, You are right. Well said. Wrong. Clinton wasn't gutless, he tried to kill Bin Laden several times. Further, he didn't have an event like 9/11 (on US soil, which led the general US public to accept WAYYYY larger 'collateral damage') to justify invasion. Bush hasn't managed to kill him yet either. (they claim he isn't really important anymore, but I guarantee you they'd make a gigantic show of it if he was caught or killed)Besides, Clinton found out the hard way (with his universal health care promise) that the Pres. doesn't actually run the country.

Dear Army Guy, Indeed, I have heard that said before. The Taliban, as they stood before 9/11, were not well liked, even amongst the Muslims in Afghanistan. This is great news, if it is true. Many are still resentful of the fact that Karzai is a 'wesertn puppet', though. How is that going to be reconciled when the US (and other western countries) still wish to impose a 'western puppet' favourable to the energy interests in the US, and therefore not favourable to the Muslims in Afghanistan? A very valid question. I have my ideas, but another valid question might be "Why is Afghanistan so important to Canada that we would concentrate all of our efforts there?"

Dear BHS, There you go, mindreading again. The reference to Vietnam must also include, to be truthful about the matter, the US' reluctance to actually declare, and fight to win, a 'war'. The 'half-measures' that the US went into Vietnam with are the same ones today that they went into Iraq with. It is difficult to compare Iraq with Vietnam and WWII with any degree of fairness, but it can be done. There was a formal declaration of war in WWII, and there was a formal capitulation. Had the US declared war on Iraq, they could have had a capitulation document signed by someone (most likely Aziz), and then could have laid down the rules for the entire country. As it stands, the US is actually an illegal occupying force, with no real laws or protection for them, especially for the period where there was no Iraqi gov't. They could have de-mobbed the Iraqi National guard, and even forbade weapons if they were prudent enough. Instead, Bremner chose to send the Iraqi army home with their guns! ( Had Bremner been killed by one of the guys with one of these guns, he should have qualified for a Darwin Award) The US then could have 'legally' shot or hung anybody carrying arms in Iraq. These and other glaring mistakes that the US has made, and continue to make, support the use of the term 'quagmire', and it is one of their own devising.

Dear BHS, The term 'Quagmire' and the comparisons to Vietnam re: Afghanistan and Iraq are not far off the mark, if one looks at the basic motivation. Ho Chi Minh said "we did not fight off the Japanese so the French could return, we want our independence". As it is with Afghanistan. (Note that the US reasoning to join the fight against was to prevent the so-called 'domino effect'). Now, again, they are fighting a protracted overseas battle, with superior weaponry against 'simple savages', to change the 'hearts and minds' of a foreign peoples. Not making much headway will only lead to the loss of support at home. Not even Bin Laden has stated this. Perhaps you know his mind better than himself?

Dear GostHacked, Moving Daylight saving time to include an extra month is odd, but isn't really a major problem. We would still "Spring ahead and Fall back", just at different times. If it isn't effective, why have it at all? I am not too worried, but perhaps it should not have been done in this exact fashion. Moving away from fossil fuels is a good thing, and tax incentives are, in my view, the best way to do it in a market system. However, as you say... this smacks of cronyism. The tax breaks should only be for the development of said alternative sources, not as subsidies to the status quo. I haven't read the bill (and doubt if I will) so I cannot say if it will actually help, or is it just another tax break for Bush & Co.'s family & freinds?

Dear Army Guy, I read the page, Leslie is indeed a well-lettered simpleton. He delivers polished verbiage but without original thought. Its as though the 'intelligence' on the US military has oozed into his (and others) mind. Unless Leslie is trying to sell them a 'New, Improved Islam', nothing that has been tried before will work. The Afghanis, the Muj and the foreign fighters that defeated vastly superior Russian forces did not do so because they wanted democracy. Or freedom (individual, western style), for that matter. They wanted an Islamic land with Islamic law, free of occupying forces, especially those of 'infidels'. Now Canada proposes that they can use military might to change their minds and is willing to spend 20 years doing it? (Nevermind the fact that Canada can't support it's military, if they actually became involved in something serious, for 20 weeks!) If Leslie aims to create a 'secular' Afghanistan, he (and Canada) will basically be fighting Islam. When he calls such 'soldiers of God' simple predators, "who want to kill those we would protect", he is either lying or stupid. But then again, he is not trying to sell it to the Afghani Mujihadeen. He is trying to sell it to you.

Dear all, This vapid comment from our General makes me cringe at the sheer idiocy. The following is a quote from CBC.ca today... If the Canadians kill 1, and then 15 more are expected to join the fight, then they will have to kill the 15, and have 225 come after them. Then, when they kill the 225,.......they might as well admit that their thinking leaves no other option but genocide to solve the problem from the outset. At least they'd be honest for a change.

Dear Hugo, There will (or could be) equal rights for all people, because the gov't is is a separate entity from 'people'. Mind you, 'people' make up the gov't, but this does not mean that those people should be exempt from the law. Then again, you claim that the 'gov't doesn't exist', yet it seems to be your 'arch-nemesis'. The 'people' in the gov't are tansitory, and so, subject to the same laws as anyone else. Gov't employees pay taxes, etc. just as anyone else.

Dear Hugo, They would, ultimately, be under the same threat of change by overwhelming force if they failed to maintain the status quo (of equality) as anyone else. I do believe this line of discussion should fall under the thread: "Is gov't neccesary?".

Dear August1991, I am not sure how you think 'the best of terrible alternatives' should be applied. Even the Roman Senate was biased and elitist in it's own way. What mechanism best serves the 'common man's interest'?I feel one of the best ways would be with me in charge, (I'm sure that this thought never ocurred to anyone else before) and have everyone vote on items of legislation (or bills, ala USA) that would or would not be passed. However, some form of direction would obviously be present.

Dear Argus, I would say that most Muslims take it ALL much more seriously, including the violent parts. So what is to be done? Take their religion away if they can't play nicely with it? I say it is high time all religions be called to account.

Dear eureka, I think you mean that there is no 'legal' process. Land ownership essentially boils down to the ability to keep something, or the ability to take it away, which ultimately means force of arms.

Dear Hugo, Then you haven't been paying attention. It has always been possible, but few, as of yet, wielded both the overwhelming force (to become the arbiter of rights) and benevolent selflessness. As I said, if someone would 'rule the country' with only the same benefits and equal privations as those they govern as their reward, you might see it come to fruition. The problem is, we only have humans to choose from.

Dear Argus, Judaism isn't all that tolerant of other religions. For example, they don't even like to use things made by 'the unholy goyim', and Christians are derided as 'idolworshippers'. The quote below is taken from Arutz Sheva, in the "Ask the Rabbi" column. It is also forbidden for a Jew to kill another Jew, (or for one to charge another interest on a loan) but it is OK to kill a goyim for transgressions against Israel. Even Pollard is considered a 'captive' because he is being held by the 'goyim'.