marcinmoka

Didn't these guys use Wikipedia as sources for their paper? Ah well. Scott and B.Max (though I only expect a somewhat intelligible answer from one of you), I will forgo discussing the specifics of this global warming as fact or myth as we will never see eye to eye. What really vexes me is your take on the whole logistics of this "conspiracy". When the vast majority of scientists either claim this event to be real or at least urge us to proceed with caution as this is still an unknown, but one with potentially detrimental consequences, you brush if off (or in the case of the poster going by the alias of Jerry Seinfeld, who is probably idiling his car as we write just to piss off his Sierra Club member neighbors). Whereas the moment one obscure web page publishes something by some low level academic, you claim it as being the truth. This makes me curious to find out your side of the story. How do YOU believe this environmental "conspiracy" came about? Was it the 'powers that be' who bribed the 'media establishment' to focus on an equally bribed group of respected academics and scientists to propagate this "myth" and silence those who dissented? Who is responsible for this "treachery"? Why? Where do their interests lay? Or is this just another symptom of an aversion to change.

The big shame is that you haven't yet learned one mustn't be "rich" to be brutal and oppressive, nor to interfere with our economic well being. But it goes to show that some useful idiots did buy into the notion of "Uncle Joe" even 50 years after the fact. Granted that could be possible when your family doesn't count amongst the 20 million dead under Stalinist rule, or the hundreds of millions of others visibly affected by a very real, dirty conflict over the course of the past few decades. ----------

As a "chicken little" myself , who with tens of millions of others fled to the safety of Canada and its allies, I am bound to laugh at the absurdity of your doubt(s). -------------------------------- As per a caliphate. Would it work? Establishing legitimacy is an issue, but I think the French were onto something when they introduced the apparently effective counter-measure of promoting friendly, state-endorsed (or at least well monitored) Imams. And while a good man and an incredible diplomat, lord knows John Paul II was not chosen on his own merits and character as much as it was the fact he hailed from the "Godless East". And one must admit, that appointment worked wonders in shifting the balance of power. Far more, one might argue, than a single squadron of f-15s. Influence is a far more powerful than control.

I never suggested it achieved nothing. It achieves little. Very, very little. Whereas fighting a battle you know from the onset you will loose because you haven't enough troops achieves nothing..perhaps for humiliation and sending out a false message that you are down for the count, when in reality you are just bruised. Pardon? I attached a certain weight to this notion of consensus, and while "moral" it may be to some, it was not for a moral end in itself, since morality is a subjective minefield. The practical end I was concerned with was purely military. I will ask again, what good is it to launch a war knowing full well you lack the man power to secure the conflict zone. I agree with the notion of instilling an island of democracy in the middle east in hopes of it fanning out, but such a process takes man power. And if ones nation lacks this manpower, from where are you going to field the additional troops? It is a good concept if we were playing "Risk" or if the U.S had twice the armies it currently has, but it still begs the question "Where would you find the troops necessary to engage in such a plan", especially one involving massive amounts of hostile forces from many more nations. The American Army is sans doute the most powerful army ever in existence, but even there, it has limits and cannot draw troops from thin air, bar reinstating the draft. So I shall ask once again, what is your magic plan to draw in the required troops? I agree with you on this, and have voiced the same opinion on a few occasions. And yes, the surge does appear to be working and it is a crying shame they did not plan for a "surge" from the get-go, as all the military brass requested, not to mention disbanding the Iraqi Army. Very long term strategic thinking. But I thought the objective was not just to oust Saddam, but to instill democracy in the power void which ensued. Well, at least you wrote: And in that case, no, it did not take two weeks, unless this Island you speak of is still T.B.A. I am all for securing our world, but as my signature says "Our addiction to wishful thinking only serves to make us weaker". This could not be more true. While it would be ideal, one must realize that war is not like film and one cannot take on everybody and anybody at the same time. P.S. Damn shame Sen. McCain never took the top spot in 2000. Things would of been much, much smoother. Who knows, maybe the guidelines of war could of actually been dictated by those in the military. ----------------------------- Poignant observation.

Fascinating point of view, but I must ask, what have they achieved Scott? Invasion or stabilization? Maybe you prefer to read tea leaves or something for something to stay up to date on your current affairs, but I would suggest taking a peek at ALL the media sources around you or talking to any troops. The current situation in Iraq is taking a 'little bit' more time than 2 weeks, in case you have not noticed. Scott. Take a deep breath, and think before you type. I am not asking for much. No where did I say it was ideal. I just said in the real world. In the end, you have two choices, both which limit your fighting capability. a. Wait for a multi-lateral consensus which is drowned out in self interest and bureaucratic red tape at which point too much damage has already been done. But how else are you going to field the extra troops which are needed. -or- b. Send in a vastly under - manned, over - exerted force which only puts your situation in peril because you are not fully battle ready. In the "real world" Scott, troops are finite. It is not pretty, but if you can find another solution, I am sure the world is all ears. While a "unilateral" approach in Iran could of been possible sans - Iraq (although Afghanistan should of been priority NO. 1), it is a no-go, which I know puts a dampner on your desire to fight with as many non-white people as humanely possible. Your solution? How would you field the extra soldiers in a unilateral conflict?

Sadly the real world is much more complicated than the "Rambo like" video game wars many uni-lateralists are accustomed to. Unlike the video games which tickle many a fancy, when a real soldier dies, gets injured or needs recovery time from duty, you must field actual people rather than pressing the "re-start" button on your controller. This is even more true when you are already engaged in two other simultaneous wars. Unless jbg, you are willing to don the Rambo bullet belt and a bandana and go at it alone? Or naturally join forces with Donald Rumsfeld and Toby Keith to form the ultimate "go it alone" commando force this world has ever seen.

They did? Are there any Security Council meetings I am not aware of? The nations of the S.C did agree that there was a weapons program in Iraq, but every nation, except for the U.K and the U.S claimed that it their intel led them to believe these programs to be either inactive or grossly insufficient to not be deemed a threat. The same cannot even remotely be said about Iran. That is why nations such as Russia and France have been much more stringent on Iran than good ol' Ivanov and De Villepin were back in the day. It is how you titled your post and what you implied. So yes, you did re-hash it on your own volition. But that is besides the point. While this may be a "major" concession for Iran, AP writer and the Guardian, it was in no way is a "major" concession for the U.N security council. And being the pragmatist I am, I am concerned with real results, not trivial semantic gymnastics taking place in the propaganda war. Anyone of us could easily log into the Fox News page or that of the Guardian, and easily realize that the opposing headlines have less to do with providing the facts than they do in swaying public opinion to one view or another. Unfortunately, sheets of pure data are not as easy to sell as pre packaged information. Now, had an independent, and often very conflicting body such as the United Nations Security Council decided to officially pronounce in a resolution that "major" steps have been taken by Iran towards ending the scenario, I would of agreed with you. But you simply accept the headline of an AP article as being the final word. I concur.

Major? This would be known as semantical sommersaults. Seriously, do you work for the Savak, or Ministry of Information or does this just come naturally? Kuzad, did you even momentarily suspect they would admit to the validity of this, or any other piece of intel? Difference is, every single nation, even partially friendly states such as China and Russia, not to mention more diplomacy oriented states such as Germany and France, all admit to having intel and grounded suspicions of Iranian inentions.

No. You don't understand. I am highlighting the quantitative aspect of immigration (what is) and you seem to be fixated on the normative (what should be). Immigrants will naturally form enclaves regardless of whether the society they live in is "deemed "multicultural" or not. I take you've never actually been to the city? Ever heard of Crown Heights?

A natural identity of course. But this plays into my point. Does labeling one country as multicultural and one as unicultural make a tangible difference, or are these but empty words that have little or nothing to do with the actual integration of culturally diverse groups. Case in point, this foot bath issue is taking place in the U.S, a nation which claims to be culturally homogenizing, yet at my school, in multicultural Canada, had this issue come across, the reactions, be it from the public, the media or the judicial system, would of been identical. These are but empty words, not at all reflective of the degree of integration taking or not taking place. And the term "multicultural", and often the knee jerk diatribe about Pierre Trudeau which follows, is definitely not worth getting your panties in a whirl. It is a political term of flattery with not relevance on policy.

Perhaps. But more likely, Yiddish was the language of choice in jewish communities and their independent schools, as it was one fundamental unifying element which helped bond the community in times of duress and preserve their culture, since it was constantly under attack. That is, unless there was not even one person, amongst the millions of jews in the region, who knew the native tongue and was willing to teach it. Not to take the oomph out of your ancestors story. Nonetheless, they did overcome much adversity (antisemitism over there, antisemitism over here), I am just a stickler for details. Hmmm.....the predictable "anti-Canadian pro-American no matter what the issue" tone of your posts. Congrats! All we need now, is to work on spelling.

I agree with you, but would change "will" to "will most likely be". While this is the most plausible outcome, nothing is ever certain. There are 1/4 of a billion people in that nation alone who are living in rather abject poverty, and the one downside will be securing the resources for this economic growth, not to mention social tensions. Remember, the Soviet Union fell apart yet no one, not even the Soviets themselves, expected it. It is this point about which I am concerned. While China will most certainly rival the United States in both the economic and eventually the military realms as you pointed out, it is the road to power that they will follow which fascinates me. They are already trying to build a sphere of influence in Africa on their quest for resources, but what will happen when they try and secure larger resources? They are no doubt eying Russia, and Russia, being a nation of eternally skeptic self reliant slavs is trying to reassert themselves without scaring of their purchaser of arms. Will a bonding alliance form between them? I doubt it, but that again, I just base this on the Russian mentality, which despite its skepticism, still views itself as a Western nation. What about the Middle East? Will the Chinese and Arab/Persian nations form an alliance, or will China just replace America as Enemy # 1 amongst terrorists and hostile governments wishing avert any and all foreign influence? I agree and I hope this to be right. Sadly, economic warefare was responsible for one of the biggest, and oft-ignored genocides of the 20th century, the Holodomor. And while the chances of such an event being re engineered are slim, it shows that economics can be a deadly tool. But back to the principal question, how do you think the global dynamics will change as China gains more and more prominence?

A little bit? I would argue "sanity" is best judged by actions, and this morality and sense of human rights show a level of ruthlessness one should not expect from a civilized nation. Granted, the people may show sanity, but the Party and it's organs are what dictates policy, not the people. It is this amoral Party which spooks me. I guess the big variable is the fate of Internal Chinese politics. Will there be mass social instability prompting a revolution? Will it be a gradual, progressed reform? Of course. But the explicit force is what "grants" them authority to partake in the shadowy proxy war without fear of serious reprisals. And if we learned anything over the past half century, these smaller conflicts are just as dirty, it is just that the victims tend to be third parties and thus not as relevant to our daily lives. Would it? A perfect sense of competition would be assuming both parties are at a similar starting point. This is not the case since it is a game of catch up. While in theory, one could argue this competition could spur advancements, it is just as plausible that theft and sabotage become the new norms, thereby reducing efficiency and incentive to innovate, as one nation tries to hamper the other so that they gain as much an advantage over their opponent as possible. Besides, when you are a super power, you musn't fear being put under the microscope by the department of justice for allegations of un-competitve behavior. I believe that economic threats will supplant ideology and military capability as the prime methods of political "assertion". But of course those nuclear threats will still loom in the background as "guarantors" that certain lines not be crossed. Could you please expand on this?

The Long March To Be A Superpower Aug 2nd 2007 | BEIJING AND TIANJIN From The Economist print edition The People's Liberation Army is investing heavily to give China the military muscle to match its economic power. But can it begin to rival America? This is (or at least should be) the most important issue in defense and security circles in upcoming decades. And while China's rise is advantageous from an economic perspective, the flipside is that it will permit them to acquire military capability (slowly) permitting them to challenge the present order. And while a few whackjobs exist and "welcome" and even "take comfort" in this rising power as a counterbalance to American led Occidental dominance, the Chinese sense of morality and respect for human rights does little to instill confidence in their role as a holders of so much power and influence. The odd thing is that there lies a very fine line in professing your military capacity. While some elements prefer to gloat and publicize their strength as a means of deterrence and intimidation, it is important to balance that off with a certain level of secrecy so to surprise the opponent and ideally make them underestimate you.

And yet if someone were to post Abu Hamza's preachings as the definitive word, you would be the first to cry foul. Reciprocity. But back to the case, from most Jewish households I know of, it is the woman who runs the show. Jews call themselves mono-theists? Nonsense. For a Jewish man, the God of Abraham is only #3 in the command structure, sitting squarely behind the omnipotent mother, followed by the wife. Granted, if you disobey one of those, you will nonetheless experience God's wrath.

Are they from Yiddishstan? So while you claim the need for foreigners to learn our official language(s) *which is something I actually do adamantly support* I am somewhat baffled how you are proud of your Ashkenazi ancestors ignoring and not bothering to learn the language of their former hosts (presumably Polish, German, Russian or Ukranian). Maybe your geography is a little bit rusty, but last time I checked, the University of Michigan was NOT in Canada. It was in the land which excels in homogenizing it's immigrant populations, unlike our Indo-Islamic pandering nation. Nice try though! The funny thing is that I am against such measures which do pander to the "choices" of a tiny minorities at the expense of the larger group. Hell, I should start lobbying for subsidized meals of pork and ask the school to construct a "vodka room" so that I can honour my cultures timely traditions. What I am against is thoughtless, knee jerk drivel which tries to antagonize one a. nation or b. group (which in the case of jbg, is a. Canada, and b. Muslims on the whole. I can understand anger directed at th actions of certain segments of those groups, but not against it's sum.

Well put. Rue, to a certain extent, you do suggest this division (i.e rational vs. fanatical) which exists in terrorist ranks. While you point out their capacity, we should focus in their respective roles as well. While I wholeheartedly agree that you cannot deal with the large irrational, fanatical elements using the traditional "Kissinger" approach, you could potentially make inroads in combating the "clever foxes" you refer to, i.e the existent power base which is pulling the strings of the fanatical foot soldiers, namely Iran, Syria and the Saudi elite. While they are but a minority, they should clearly understand what is at stake and should thus be more willing to succumb to sticks (and the occasional carrot). Despite the individual cell structure so pervasive in terrorism which permits these miniture groups to dictate the tactical portions of attacks, the overlaying strategies, motifs, and *money* come from the top, just as in a conventional army.

JBG, of course not. Well, that is not what you had let us to believe. According to all you other posts, Canada is the big bad multi cultural bogeyman, pandering to the desires of every minority group, while the U.S is an allusion to the ideal, a nation of integration and cultural homogeneity. And Maybe...just maybe, multiculturalism is but a term conjured up to appease a bitter nation, but in practicable terms, means nothing. Immigrants may or may not integrate (sad, but true) into their host society based on a multitude of other factors, but whether a nation officially deems itself "multicultural" or " integrational" means nothing. France has a policy of assimilation, while Britain has a policy of multiculturalism. Ditto for the U.S and Canada. Yet, they still face the same problems. But to pass the buck and lay all your blame on one little noun is a childish oversimplification. I know you are far more capable of presenting serious argumentation, so why do you insist on this whole "Everything American is the BEST, and everything not American, especially Canadian is flawed by default". Is this superiority complex stemming from some sort of insecurity, giving you the need to assert, and reassert yourself even sans justification?

Sorry, but the language of Shakespeare is filled with many a nuance. "Might", while similar to "may" expresses the concept of an uncertain probability. Used as a rhetorical device, it neither confirmed nor denied your "article". My sole purpose was to hi-lite the great deal of stubborness and hypocrisy in trying to point out the opponents flaws while categorically denying that you too may be subject to these flaws as well. Furthermore, this pertains to a much broader spectrum of "sources" than this one as it pertains to the bigger picture. You cannot just claim that articles supporting the opposing view are pure propaganda whereas those supporting your view are just by pure default. Nor do I care to know.

True. While we might indeed fall victim to American Propaganda, for some reason you tend to avoid references to the anti Western Propaganda which gives you your kicks. Interesting. But remember, [mis]information is a two street. The duality hypocrisy of man.

Moon of Mecca? No offense, but who the hell is this clown? Despite not being a a devout follower, I would rather prefer that the canonical texts and contextual analysis of Christianity be emanating from Rome or at least Canterbury. Whether you believe or not, at least the theologians of both the Protestant and Catholic faiths have put in countless effort into the study and analysis of religious doctrine over the course of centuries if not millennia, and are much more suited to to explain a. the principles of a faith b. the varying principles of other faiths. And it proves we were not just burning witches, but actually doing something productive, in so that even the most secular or academics would respect Christian theological analysis. This "tele-preacher mans" explanation of religion is equivalent of asking a 4th grader to explain a doctoral level seminar. And if I were a Jew, considering their commonly held devotion to religious analysis, I would be doubly pissed off seeing twice as much time put into study being boiled down to some masturbatory cliche terms. Reducing our religions to this makes a mockery of cultures. While Pope Benedict's speeches are not even remotely as "digestible" as a primer to the televised Nascar race on Sundays, I would prefer you use those in debate, since there was actually some thought put into them.

I was wondering the same. Who knows, maybe his being so passionate about the subject he will become so inspired and join Benny Hinn ministries himself, preaching the good word to others. And our good poster friend Jerry Sienfeld will join the Greenpeace brigades.

But both are paranoid, deluded and dangerous enough to warrant that need. For all intents and purposes, when it comes to the safety of my family, I see no difference between a paranoid gun waving survivalist and a paranoid gun waving crack or smack head. Than why not repost them. It is not a difficult task after all. Perhaps they make sense to you, in your head, but leaves the rest of us unsatisfied. If you asked me to do the same, I would. And once you do, I will gladly respond to your question. Whereas if you want to play childish games, and lead me on a wild goose chase to make sense of your answers, unfortunately that is a pleasure I will not afford you. What you seek is but a few right clicks away.

Well for your convenience, I can re-post the questions, and you can use the quoting function to re-post your answers, in a clear, unobstructed manner. So here it goes. 1)Would you condone the murders of the 4 mounties shot in Alberta a few years back? You seem to advocate that the state, and all it's organs are simply out to trample on your rights and rob you, and that you should have the right (though apparently no obligations) to defend yourself and your property with as much firepower, and as much impunity as you wish. 2)And what are these rights? And where are they stated? 3)Seeing as you hate our subjective, civilized crazy leftist Canada, out of curiosity, what nation is right wing and "uncivilized" enough for you? 4)So wait, so only those who have been informed directly by God, actually have rights. But than you are telling me that not all rights stem from God. You are arguing both sides of the fence. 5)Does his un-rightful act deserve the punishment of death with you acting as judge, jury and executioner? (i.e, is the concept of justice a personal matter, and should you be able to kill who ever you wish, as long as you simply "feel" they have wronged you?) I do apologize for asking you to "re-post" your answers a nouveau, but I genuinely think it would be useful to clarify our respective queries and views.

Touche. It seems Tehran and Riyadh are the only places exempt from the poisonous grips of those damned Godless mongrels. The day you answer all of mine.