theloniusfleabag

Dear eureka, You have hit the nail on the head with this one. 'Marriage', and 'Communion', are two of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. Therefore, they do not have 'definitions' outside of the Church definition. If the Civil authorities want to change what is acceptable to them, based on a civil union, in regards to tax laws, et al, then so be it. The gov't should not be able to dictate interpretations to religions, only ban them as a whole based of certain parameters. The failure of a religious group to recognize SSM is not an intrusive violation of rights...

Dear anticlimates, Amen, brother! Canadians have every resource needed to actually survive. Hollywood may be worth billions, but Bill Gates' carcass would only feed me for a week at most.

Dear Stoker, The USA 'failed' only in what it said it was 'intending to do', not what it was really intending to do. Freedom can only be won, in any lasting sense, fom the inside. Democracy has no hope if the people don't want or are afraid to fight for it. In that sense, it can't belong those who won't fight for it, and it was a failing of the USA to not recognize that if the Iraqi's themselves weren't prepared to fight for it, then it is a useless gift. One day, the Iraqi majority might decide that democracy is worth fighting for. Then again, one day, all the world's major religions might just sit down together and debate "Which is the one true god?"

Dear I miss Reagan, I thank you for the allowance of the greeting change, but there are just to many anal-retentive reasons why I cannot change my greeting. I was raised to be polite, (not by beating, by repetition) and things such as; letter writing, proper forms of address, grammar (which I believe I am still failing!) and punctuation. I believe the last two listed are among August1991's pet peeves. Therefore, as I am very dumb, I can only choose to start a form of address with either 'To Whom it may Concern', or Dear (Sir/madam, or if I know exactly who I am addressing, their name). It could easily be argued that 'the strategic alliance' gambit caused 9/11.

Funny, I just read an article yesterday about the USA bringing Israel into the equation over the threat Iran poses. Evidently, Iran is 'an enemy of Israel' and any power they have, or come to have, is a 'direct threat' to Israel. However, Israel views every country, including the USA, as a threat. Further, they sold tons of conventional weaponry to Iran, including anti-aircraft missiles that were once stationed around Israel's nuclear reactor! I am currently reading a fascinating book called "By Way of Deception", by Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent (who was born in Edmonton, by the way) and the 'dirty tricks' of Israel are almost without parallel. Oddly enough, Canada is one of the countries that has been 'used' extensively, housing 'front companies' to facilitate Mossad agents throughout the world (Ostrovsky claims that over 60% of the Mossad's 'fronts' were based in Canada. He also claims to have seen a storage area with approx. 1000 stolen, unused Canadian passports, and was not surprised when nothing like this was reported in the media).

Dear g_bambino, Indeed, Poor Prince Harry is being persecuted more for the sales of the tabloids than for the silly action he committed. Heck, what if he went around in the most popular costume of all time, 'The Devil'? He would have been Hitler, Stalin and Ghengis Khan all in one, the 'greatest evil-doer' fathomable!.If Harry had, say, denied the Holocaust, or claimed "Hitler had the right ideas", then I could see how he could be in big trouble, but not for wearing a costume, especially as a 'foolish kid'.

Dear Black Dog, Here are a couple of quotes found on Wikipedia about Allawi, including his hand in supplying false information about WMDs to the British to help justify the case for invasion. Here is the link, and thereby the source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyad_Allawi

Dear Black Dog, I am not surprised to hear of this. It is not dictatorships that so rile the US, it is 'non-pro-USA' dictatorships that they loathe. Just like Manuel Noriega, who was 'just fine', and on the US Army payroll for 30 years, and on the CIA'a for 15. Then, when Noriega ceased to be a 'moderate', for not abrogating the Canal Treaty, he instantly became a 'thug and a drug dealer'.Allawi is probably much the same. As long as he continues to be pro-US, and allows the USD to be the currency of choice, and not the Euro (as Saddam tried) he will be 'a good guy' regardless of what he does.

Somehow, the whole story is ridiculous. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...raqpoliticspoll Firstly, Japan has not been 'allowed by the USA' to fire weapons abroad, except in self-defence, since 1947. A policy like this is not much good in wartime, what are they doing there in the first place?? Secondly, a large number of those polled want 'the troops out' if they begin taking casualties, and many want them out when the Dutch troops, placed there to protect the Japanese troops, end their tour. Again, what the heck is this in 'wartime'? The Japanese obviously have no political nor popular will to be there, so that only leaves the notion that Japan joined as part of the 'coalition of the coerced', for whatever political favour was promised them by the USA. It is foolish to have such allies. If the USA didn't have the nuts to call and fight a proper war, how can they expect to win with allies that have even less to offer?

Dear I miss Reagan, The left understands that 'strategic alliances', with dictators and despots, have been proven to be more harmful in the long run, time and time again. The theory of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is the mantra of the short-sighted, greedy fool.

Dear I miss Reagan, Comments, by themselves, aren't incrimination. These are merely accusations. There is no doubt that Saddam once had, and used, WMDs. Now it seems, with the benefit of hindsight, Saddam did comply with the disarmament resolutions, and destroyed his WMDs. The US/UK simply called him a liar and invaded, only to be proven to be in the wrong. There are two ways to attack another country. One is an illegal action of aggression, the other a legal act of war. In Iraq, as well as the bombing of some sites in Sudan, were illegal because the right to self-defence requires proof of immediate and direct threat, (even if it is produced after the fact) and in these two cases, the USA failed miserably. Iraq complied with resolution 1441, but the US told the UN weapons inspectors to 'get out of the way' before the deadline. They were going to invade, compliance or no compliance, WMDs or not.

Dear PocketRocket, Actually, they have. Should be deployed in the next couple of years. The Predator Drone has also been 'weaponized', and former Pres. Clinton tried to use it to take out Bin Laden on a couple of occasions.

I was speaking to an East Indian friend of mine, (actually the guy who owns the liquor store that I keep in business in my neighborhood) about the US policy in Iraq. He is older than I, and very astute, so I ask him a lot of questions on culture, (he is presently teaching me to speak Punjabi) history, and our common interest of business ownership. He told me that the US policy in Iraq is based on an old saying in India, kind of a proverb, about "averting danger by dropping a bucket of popcorn amongst the monkeys". He said, it seems that the US has tried to institute democracy in Iraq not to 'make life better for the Iraqis, but to draw the focus away from America'. It is a dual purpose strategy, for it involves getting the Iraqis (and now the terrorists) to fight amongst themselves, ('Dropping the bucket of popcorn'), thus changing the focus of the terrorists from "The Homeland" to fighting the American imposition of it's democratic values in the middle east. Now, the 'terrorists' can fight against America in their own country, against their own people, and this, in turn, ostensibly makes America less threatened by direct attack. It seems that, for now, this strategy is working. Iraq, before 9/11, had no ties to terrorism, no WMD's, and, save for the Kurds, (who can't seem to get their way) very little infighting. Now, terrorists and insurgents are drawn like a magnet to Iraq, and that delicious bucket of popcorn. But is it a winning strategy? I do not think so. It is only meant to buy time. Osama himself has not been in Iraq (to the best of anyone's knowledge), so it is difficult to say if the Iraq imbroglio has truly made the USA any safer, for another major attack is expected by most every analyst in the business. Even if Osama is killed tomorrow, most everyone thinks that the US' actions thus far has only increased the chances of another 9/11.

Dear August1991, I agree. I realize that you feel democracy is imperfect, and have often sided against it. I have also seen you disagree with Hugo's anarchy (which he presents rather well) so I cannot seem to figure out what you feel would be a better solution. Benevolent dictatorships? Dynastic Monarchies? Or having everyone submit a 'constitutional law' on a slip of paper, and having 10 new laws 'drawn like a lottery' every month (or year)?

Dear ndpnic, Nonsense. The reason will follow kimmy's quote...Dear kimmy, WestJet is not unionized, and the company treats it's employees fairly. Air Canada has two major problems. Milton is the #1problem, running the company into the ground with decision-making and no fiscal responsibility, because he knows the gov't will bail him out again. Secondly, the unions are killing the airline by making it non-competative. WestJet, and other airlines, will fill the void once Air Canada dies. I don't personally care if it is KLM or Nunavut Air, if there is a demand and a profit to be made, room should be made for companies that operate in a fiscally responsible manner. There is also Greyhound and a host of other 'alternative competitors' that would be able to move passengers (though not at the same speed, yet) and if the 'market' was left alone by the gov't, as it is in my industry, the best businesses will make it happen.

Dear eureka, Most of the oil for the German war machine was from Rumania. While Germany ceded the Rumanian territories of Bessarabia and N. Bukovina to the USSR in 1940, the German war machine could have been brought to a halt with the loss of the Rumanian oil fields. Saudi oil was never in Hitler's plans. (at least not immediately, but had he conquered the USSR, Germany could have moved in from the North) The taking of Egypt was to be a blow against British prestige, as well as threatening it's oil supplies, more than anything tactical. Of British naval superiority, there is no question. However, the UK was losing the Battle of Britain until Goering changed the focus of the bombing campaign from the airfields to the cities. This gave the heroic but very weary RAF a chance to recover, and staved off their elimination by attrition. Barbarossa was brilliantly conceived, and succeeded in crushing the bulk of the existing Soviet military. Had Hitler not intervened, re-routed troops in 'Operation Blau' into the Caucasus, and had let his generals 'do the details', it would have been a success, no question in my mind. How long Germany could have occupied it is another story, but don't forget, it was Hitler's plan to depopulate the country, and import Danes, Finns, etc to settle there, making occupation much easier. Further, Hitler squandered his chance to have millions of Russians fighting for the Germans, for many deeply wished to see Stalin overthrown. Many (mistakenly) saw the Germans as 'liberators'. After the war, Stalin had whole villiages shipped off to Siberia in retribution. Might I remind you, all this was after Germany had conquered almost all of Europe (save the neutral countries)!

After reading so much about the problems surrounding the coming Iraqi 'elections', I thought I would try to see who all was running, and what their chances were. It seems that there are some 230 slated candidates, most of whom cannot travel within the country to campaign, and do not have TV or advertising budgets. Of the few that do have access to large amounts of money, they are almost all hard-line clerics or their representatives. The only one who seems to have it all wrapped up is Allawi. In USAToday, How fair is this? As the US imposed ruler of the interim gov't, he and only he can use this kind of influence. The USA should be taking steps to stop this mockery of democracy, yet I somehow think that is not going to happen.

Here is a link to the story of armed robots soon to be sent to Iraq. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...nslinging_robot While these are not autonomous yet, it seems that is the goal. "For the forseeable future, a human will be in the loop to decide 'friend or foe". Great news, for those who were hoping for the development of lethal, autonomous battalions of killing machines.

Dear kimmy, I have heard baseball described as 'the only game where you can play your position and still catch the occasional nap'. Mind you, I have seen a t-shirt that read; "Hockey: 5 guys in stockings and garters, looking to score".

Dear Pateris, Indeed, I saw a headline today "Martin Threatens Same-Sex Vote". The US wants to impose democracy in Iraq and curtail the 'limiting of freedom along religious lines', yet the media implies that a democratic vote on same-sex marriage is 'threatening'. If Iraq were to vote tomorrow on Same-sex marriage, it would be hailed as a 'great victory for democracy'. (and the USA would say it justified their invasion!)

I always found it funny that baseball (and I believe basketball) in the US call the league winners 'World Champions' when there is no other countries (save a couple teams from Canada) that are allowed to compete. Reminds me of when I was a kid, playing for the championship of the known universe, in my driveway.

Dear RB, Your reply reminds me of the song, "Short People" by Randy Newman. 'Short people got no reason to live....' It was a song scoffing at discrimination, and I listen to it ocasionally when I throw some 45s on the old record player. He also has a great song called 'Political Science' which I recommend all to listen to.

Dear August1991, I am inclined to disagree, even though I have tremendous respect for the 'fighting spirit' of the Russians, especially the partisans. Unfortunately, however, if the Germans under Hitler had taken Russia, it would have been the 'last generation' of Russians, and you would have been able to talk to none of them. Hitler's plans were to ship 75% of them off to Siberia (and to death), and the rest were to become helots, or slaves.

Dear August1991, Occasional use, even 'when provoked' is still no excuse when:1. profanity is used in a non-contextual manner, as a direct insult at another poster, and 2. when repeatedly warned and previously suspended for the exact same actions. I am inclined to agree, but, given the absurdity of some of maplesyrup's posts, and the complete lack of ability(or will) to counter various viable arguments against, was maplesyrup being disingenuous, or just pig-headed? I have seen what unregulated and moderated forums can be like. I vote strongly that Greg continue to moderate in the spirit of the forum and in the fashion he has done. Maplesyrup may be a prolific catalyst to various debates on this forum, but he/she has been given ample warnings and leeway, and has still chosen to ignore the warnings from the moderator to debate/post in a reasonable fashion. I don't think Greg asks too much.

Dear eureka, Ok, here goes... the following is a quote from "The Illustrated History of The Third Reich" by John Bradley, 1978, pgs 145-147. With Greece and Crete being threatened by both Italy and Germany,.... In the coming months, Mussolini tried to take Greece by himself, and had his butt royally kicked. The Italians actually ended up losing territory to the formidible Greeks, ending up behind their starting point in Albania! The Germans had to step in, crush Greece, and launch a very costly 'Operation Mercury' to take Crete. Then, also on pg 147, This is not meant to belittle the heroic actions of the Brits in N. Africa, nor to say that their efforts were unimportant. The authors of these books also have the benefit of hindsight when writing, but there is no way that N. Africa was 'a turning point' in the war, unless you mean 'omen'-wise.