White Doors

Uh...right. If anything, Nasser's public bellicosity is a sure sign that he had no intention of attacking Israel. Why would anyone in their right mind broadcast their plans to their enemy? The unvarnished historical record paints a pretty clear picture: Israel was not threatened. If anything, it knew how weak its enemies were and acted to explouit that weakness. And as much as Israel apologists like to portray the Six Day War as yet another struggle for exisetence against an implacable foe (thus fitting it nicely into the national mythos), the facts say otherwise. the facts? because they won? How dare the Israeli's win so convincingly!

Really ? Lets hear it !! This movie is available free on Google. Read the comments about what some people say who studied economics wrt this movie. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3286459385978771924 I agree with it and i have had a few courses in economics + read a few books about it on my own. I really want to call you on this bluff. Can you be called on this ? It is obvious you have very little clue about economincs. Banks don't make money from the money they print, they make money from the difference in the interest rates they pay out to savers and the rate they charge to lenders. They cannot just simply keep printing money and that's it.

And Oreilly didn't admit the war was wrong, he admitted the intelligence was faulty.

Japan?

Wow. Craziest rant I have seen on the internet in a long time. thanks! An economics 101 course would be all that was needed to quash this kindergarten argument. Except the FEMA death camps though! that's compelling stuff! LOL

It isn't undemocratic either. I think a very strong argument can be made that the people who contribute to society should have a bit more to say about how (basically their) tax money is spent than people who need society's help. Society's door should always be open to help the less fortunate; those people should not have an equal voice in how the system's run with the people who create the wherewithal to help them. We keep hearing this notion that the rich 'contribute' more to society than others. Actually, it should be obvious that the rich BENEFIT more from society than others. Wow. They gave you a great lesson in power politics and the violation of democracy. Sort of reminds me of the West's response to the recent elections in Palestine. Wow, are you ever anti-Israel man. That was hardly the reponse. Not even close actually. With democracy comes responsibility.

Why not use the great Sea Kings? Yes. They are, afterall, good enough for the President of the United States. I suspect both of you are being disingenuous. However, the Sea King used by the president is a far more modern variant of the ancient, creaking, rusting buckets of bolt we currently have flying haphazardly across the skies. haha. yep, just jokin

You posted this quote: And this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/midd...six_day_war.stm As far as I can tell, the quote isn't from that link, and the link says nothing whatsoever about a BBC survey of historians. Maybe I'm missing something ... care to fill me in? That quote is from that link. I can't help you with your navigational skills. refute or accept.

And does that tell you anything for your course? You should ask your professor about that and ask why.

The BBC did. Did they? How many scholars did they survey? What was their sample-selection methodology? What questions did they ask, and what replies were received? And you forgot to answer: Would you or would you not believe senior Israeli officials? I would listen to them for sure, but I would have to investigate if their claims were contradictory to known historical fact. As should you. Ummm ... historical 'fact' established how and 'known' to who? BTW, you haven't answered my basic questions about this alleged BBC survey of historians. I've already posted the link, why don't you prove it wrong with your insider informaiton? Obviously you didn't even read it. I'm posting accepted historical fact. If you have an issue with accepted historical fact then the burden of proof is on you sir.

Are you missing the key part of this? The 31.5% hike on Income Trusts was nothing? Yes, tey had to do that to keep Canada competitive. No one should have a portfolio that is unbalanced. If some do and are hurt unduly by this, then it is their own fault. Plus seniors were using this as income from the cash distributions, not by the actual price of the stock so they have 4 more years of this nice income as long as they don't sell. Use some of the cash distributions to build a more balanced portfolio.

And raised others. Whoop-de-do. Which one's did they raise?

haha. Then why aren't you happy about Saddam? All you are doing is prattling on about other things. Why don't you make another thread? I bet you aren't happy about Saddam because the Americans were the one's who ultimately sent him to this fate. Sad to have your world out-look only seen through your painfully obvious paradigm of anti-americanism.

I haven't decided, whatever party shows me that they are most likely to be real fiscal conservatives. Any party that raises taxes with a surplus isn't getting my vote. I'm far from an angry, rigid, ideological right-winger. There are some days when I'd more likely fit with the Liberals. The only opinion I'm very 'rigid' on is tax cuts. With that surplus they should have cut the seniors taxes, and left well enough alone on the income trusts. They've got tons of cash, what do they need more for? More socialist projects? What? Uhhh.. they did cut seniors taxes.

Sounds like you need a program. Your having a problem telling the good guys from the bad. Well then why don't you help me out? Let's start by trying to identify the good guys. Which do you pick? Pinochet who had his police fly political dissenters and opposition party members out over the ocean in helicopters tied up like pigs for the slaughter and drugged into a stupor; then dropped from a thousand feet head first? Kissinger who ordered the fire bombing of Cambodia, leading to the death of tens of thousands of innocent Cambodian pesants and the ultimate defeat of the peaceful government of Lon Nol and the rise of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge who were responsible for one of the greatest mass murders of the 20th century? Sharon, who in the early days of the state of Israel lead reprisal raids which resulted in the slaughter of entire villages (Jordan and Syria) and police outposts (Egypt) and then went on to invade Lebanon and slaughter some 17,000 peple, including over 2,500 Palestinian refugee women and children who had been left defenceless after the voluntary surrender and evacuation of the PLO to Tunisia. Your choice? Yes, yes we get it already. Right-wingers = bad. Left wingers or enemies of the former rightwingers = good.

The BBC did. Did they? How many scholars did they survey? What was their sample-selection methodology? What questions did they ask, and what replies were received? And you forgot to answer: Would you or would you not believe senior Israeli officials? I would listen to them for sure, but I would have to investigate if their claims were contradictory to known historical fact. As should you.

Something I wondered about too, as Canadian forces are not strictly 'peacekeeping' they do use guns and bullets. I don't understand why some people think it is fine for Canada to get involved with Darfur or Somalia as that would also be involvement with warring Muslim factions - we would be targets there and at home. They say it's fine now, but it's not. If we did do those missions the same people would be out demonstrating. There is nothing to argue about here. Their minds are made up and that's it. I do wonder how they get over the part where the UN voted to do it. I mean, that is usually their battle cry. 'The UN didn't sanction this war'!! So you see, it doesn't matter. War is too 'tribal' for these people to care why it is being done. They are the west's weakness. They are as Stalin used to say, the West's 'useful idiots'

Ummm ... NO. I only disagree with missions which have no connection to our national interests and which have no plan or prospect of success. For those who support continuing the Afghan mission, please tell me ... what's the strategy? How will we know we are succeeding? What are the milestones? When will it finish? To help the formation of a responsible country on the world stage that has human rights for its people. A democracy is good too and also a government that is able to effecively govern. I mean, this is pretty elementary stuff here. I am puzzled why you are mystified as to what the 'exit criteria' are.

Please note that it was the liberals who agreed to send the troops to Kandahar for combat operations, not the conservatives. I agree with the liberals doing that and I agree with the conservatives backing it up.

The Griffins are light duty civilian helicopters. They would fall out of the sky like rocks in Afghanistan's harsh climate and the high altitudes they'd need to fly, even without being shot at. Why not use the great Sea Kings? Yes. They are, afterall, good enough for the President of the United States.

Right -- Israel started it. (Also, it's highly questionable that Israel's neighbors had any serious intention of attacking.) Then why did Egypt ask the UN peacekeepers to leave the Sinai in May 1967, and impose a naval blockade on the Gulf of Aqaba, sealing off the Israeli city of Eilat? For recreation? You want my interpretation? Egypt did those things in response to Isreal's provocations. In any event, they don't change the fact that it's highly questionable that the Arab states intended to attack. You keep repeating this but have provided nothing to back your claim. I have provided resources to back up my claim and you have not - yet you expect people here to take your word for it.. that's telling. You don't believe me? Who would you believe? Would you believe senior Israeli officials? Who would you believe? Would you beleive 'the majority of historical scholars' who side with me on this issue? You've done a survey of historical scholars to confirm this 'majority' I suppose? Would you or would you not believe senior Israeli officials? The BBC did.

Right -- Israel started it. (Also, it's highly questionable that Israel's neighbors had any serious intention of attacking.) Then why did Egypt ask the UN peacekeepers to leave the Sinai in May 1967, and impose a naval blockade on the Gulf of Aqaba, sealing off the Israeli city of Eilat? For recreation? You want my interpretation? Egypt did those things in response to Isreal's provocations. In any event, they don't change the fact that it's highly questionable that the Arab states intended to attack. You keep repeating this but have provided nothing to back your claim. I have provided resources to back up my claim and you have not - yet you expect people here to take your word for it.. that's telling. You don't believe me? Who would you believe? Would you believe senior Israeli officials? Who would you believe? Would you beleive 'the majority of historical scholars' who side with me on this issue?

So if someone doesn't share your opinion on an issue, that is evidence of a "narrow little mind." If you don't see the flaw in that logic, there is no point in any further discussion and I will no longer respond to your posts. [/quote Well did you read my link? Did you see that the vast majority of Afghani's want our presence there? Did you see that the vast majority of Afghani's don;t want the Taliban back? Yet, you want to cut and run? Why? Does what the Afghan people want enter into your thought process at all?

1. Right. The national interests of the UNITED STATES were involved, and our membership in an alliance led us to assist them in protecting THEIR national interests. I'm okay with that, but that doesn't make it OUR national interests. 2. The regime that threatened the national interests of our ally has been overthrown. Job well done. The rest of this 'mission' is a farce. The rest of the mssion is the most important part. It is apparent you have a very juvenile understanding of the situaiton. The rest of the mission is the part we have no obligation to fulfill, no viable strategy for accomplishing, and no hope of acheiving. P.S. Just because I disagree with you does not make my understanding of the situation 'juvenile'. Do you know what 'juvenile' means? It's not that you disagree with me it's that you offer no evidence and make wild predictions about the future. I would say that your world view is quite juvenile, yes.

Right -- Israel started it. (Also, it's highly questionable that Israel's neighbors had any serious intention of attacking.) Then why did Egypt ask the UN peacekeepers to leave the Sinai in May 1967, and impose a naval blockade on the Gulf of Aqaba, sealing off the Israeli city of Eilat? For recreation? You want my interpretation? Egypt did those things in response to Isreal's provocations. In any event, they don't change the fact that it's highly questionable that the Arab states intended to attack. You keep repeating this but have provided nothing to back your claim. I have provided resources to back up my claim and you have not - yet you expect people here to take your word for it.. that's telling.