marcinmoka

I'm just curious as to the basis of this theory. By pattern this would imply numerous instances of appeasement-aggression towards a multitude of "new-comers", and over the same time frame, this appeasement-aggression did not surface in the U.S, but both did appease and turn in a vicious manner, difference is America did not see birth to a Hitler (although the anti-black sentiment was...and is....notable, but not as systematic), but this would hardly constitute a pattern, nor an acceptance as a Saviour by the whole of the population.

JBG, don't you see???? It's like the Holy Trinity. Israel is Bush is Evil. Kill one, and they just come back under a different form.

Bon Voyage!!!!!! (Even China seems a rather *unique* destination for an Anarchist). But yeah, feel free to e-mail me some pics from the ciudad de deus. * At least before they shoot you for your camera*

I would say that Bush recognizes what is at stake, which is, literally everything, but sadly remains lost in how to achieve the desired ends. The Europeans kinda acknowledge the problem, but are two anti American to full admit it. Though parts of their camp at least know how NOT to get there. If we can only get the two to agree, that is a massive step forward (and one which Sakozy will be instrumental in overcoming). Our nations constitute NATO, and that is our only way forward.

What are judging a talent show or something? This discussion would be much more productive if you stopped ignoring the content of the valid remarks directed towards this (naive) ideology and focused on the content. In all honesty, I don't care about your childhood cold war analysis, your musical tastes, your preferred rhetorical techniques. I did try to read the thread, but just as how you critique others, your points often lack clarity and focus. You start of logically, but then you dove into these esoteric abstractions which are wholly divorced from reality. Many ideas may appear good, and desirable. But their true test is in dealing with real life scenarios, and by those standards, anarchy is utterly hopeless, in that it presupposes we are beings who act in a predictable manner.

Spoken like a true Marxist/Anarchist. Whenever someone points out the reasons why said ideas will forever be on the margins, the most common reply is " we're misunderstood" or " you do not understand us". Wrong. We DO get it. We just realize that in life, one must have contingency plans, and cannot rely on some far fetched ideal. There is a reason many mock these absurdly naive ideas....

Well, being from the other side of the cold war, I can tell you that we did not give up our basic necessities (food, medicines, etc) just to have a few extra SS-18 Satan's in our annual May Day Parade to show off. If you think it's bogus, so be it. There are other people who would be convinced that WW2 was bogus, does that give them any credibility in my book? Don't count on it. I was hoping it was simple enough to comprehend, and I doubt most others have difficulty in understanding. I would say that simply refuting an idea with a pejorative adjective and not explaining the reasoning behind it to be a rather pathetic excuse. We are a free country. You are free to base your ideas on some of the Stalinist and Maoist apologists (though I hope you don't) and ignore the atrocities committed by said groups, but I prefer Zbigniew Brzezinski, whom I find a much more credible source.

Just like in Kabul, right? Non agression? So we should have a right to sell RPG's to anyone who is willing to pay, ignoring their raison d'etre and just assuming they will be used for nothing more than a paperweight? Shame other people are not as virtuous as yourself. But hopefully, they are not as naive. So the V.Tech shooter was rational? The crack head around the corner is rational? The rapist stalking women is rational? As you said. Simple, unjust actions have been eventually corrected through this system of checks and balances. Be it the draft, internment of Japanese citizens, etc. I'd much rather there be some semblance of unity than total free for all. Yes, because I chose them, by means of casting a ballot. It's either this method, or rule by those with the biggest guns, but no alternate means of removing them from power other than by picking up a gun myself. Find me a moment in history when it was neither of the two. I challenge you to make a coherent revision of this phrase/idea. Yes, parts of the world. This idiocy is not reserved to just individual states, but entire swaths. Or would you prefer "regions" or "areas"? So do I. But why? Are you referring to geography? What makes Canada great? For me, it's the level of stability, security and prosperity we enjoy here, because I definitely did not come for the weather. This stability is the result of a common acceptance of a system of laws, independant of our own morality. While some may not agree with these laws, most of us obey them because we have a state and a legal system which protects us by means of a judicial system backed by the threat of coercive actions. Seriously, maybe you cannot wait to shoot people who want to rob you, but I find it much easier to just call the police. And I am willing to pay taxes for social stability. We will always form groups and attempt to fight what we percieve is unjust, I say let's just make the best of it. And the point of this comment was.......you miss Frankie Goes to Hollywood?????? You can mock Russians as much as you want, but the fact remains, THIS WAS STILL REAL. You commonly ignore points by providing one liners such as "this is childish" or "this is irrelevant", all while reducing the cold war to nothing but an 80's song. Very mature.

So an actual event is not a serious argument, but a hypothetical claim about "zillions of situations" you made without any backing is a serious argument? I mean technically, the Montreal RPG'ists did think it was their key to freedom, because the elimination of Ma Boucher would have prevented a credible trial against them. Of course. Because the reason for which RPG's were invented, and for what they are primarily used is to aid in the preparation of food. I see, cutlery......anti-tank assault weapons are all one and the same. Without a state to protect us, we would all be speaking русский Well, I immigrated to Canada to escape the idiocy existent in many other parts of the world. Any reason why you have stayed here? Yes we can. It's called Democracy, and is governed by functioning legal system to prevent abuses. Simple. We all have the right to believe in certain ideas, which should be of no concern. However, people sometimes have a tendency to act out ideas which are harmful to others, at which point they are of concern, and should be dealt with accordingly by the organs of the state responsible for our safety and security. *And if you can answer but ONE question for me, please let it be the following* If it is so bad here, why do you stay here in Canada? Why do you not escape off into the world you admire so much. Why not move to Kabul, or Bogota

Well, there an average of 110 cars burned a day. And 10 attacks on police and fire services. A riot is usually an organized collective burning more than one car. Last fall, there were 10,000 burned. As per riots...there are two principal perpetrating groups; a) The extreme left, who are generally upper middle class kids who are fuelled by a combined sense of guilt (for their socio-economic stature) and a educational system coupled with modern mythology which glorifies socialist ends (May 68, French Revolution, Che) while ignoring all of their darker points...(someone say Solzhenitsyn....I would be hard pressed to find it in a French translation ) The racaille. Banlieu ridden hooligans who need to play the victim rather than taking any sense of responsibility into their own hands. Difference is, they do not see riots as political "tools", merely a chance to show how tough they are, to steal some cell phones, and a chance to brag to other "banlieues" how rough their neighborhood is, since the more burning cars, the bigger the bragging rights. They were born there. If anything, it may be a testament to bad parenting (though a big part of that can be atributed to culture and parental socio economic and intellectual status', since males are too often given Carte Blanche to do as they please, and women are kept prisoner). I was there, and I did not see a single female, or older male riot, just a bunch of 15 year old males who dropped out of school, than complain that they can't find jobs and choose to blame it on racism in front of the cameras. But it was more often than not, an excuse to be idiots. There were many, many Arabs who voted for Sarkozy, because they want someone who respected them, who respected hard work and honesty, and avoided treating them like hopeless invalids with voting rights. It is this group (the racaille) which needs to be dealt with swiftly and severely, because they ruin it for the peace loving majority of immigrants, and so far, the law has been a joke in dealing with them. And Sarkozy will change it.

But some do. Perhaps it is since you come from Quebec, whereas I have family in regions where private individuals do find it advantageous to acquire RPG's to eliminate competitors, and in many regions of the world, it is cheaper than hiring a lawyer. In fact, I do re-call an instance in Quebec. During the "Ma Boucher" H.A. trial, where there was a case of R.P.G fire against a federal courthouse in an attempt to kill a witness. The Cold War. Sure, they never attacked. But that was because of this state provisioned deterrent force we had in place. I agree, and would very much prefer the world worked as such. It would be of benefit to everyone. However, people do not always act rationally. And this is quite a common occurrence. And while an "anarchistic" model would function well in Shangri-La or what have you, it is severely flawed when applied to the real world because it fails to capture the countless nuances that make the world as it truly is. Very rational an approach, I must say. But I have one more question for you: Do people always act rationally? * I have always wondered why people lump(ed) communism and anarchy together, seeing as they operate on completely dichotic set of principles. But I finally see why.......their reliance on a non-attainable ideal.

And this I am afraid to say that this is a dangerous mentality, and one which is a legitimate threat to society, and should be dealt with. RPG's are not commodities like frying pans, or jeans. While some groups may be outrages at low cut jeans, RPG's will no doubt add exponentially to public instability and unrest (i.e. the chaos we refered to earlier). Is there any circumstance in which you do own the victim? And if our nation is attacked by a hostile force? Some would no doubt contribute to a private army, but others would not. What would be the the plan of contingency.

Wow. How very authoritarian an ultimatum for a self professed anarchist. Ah well..

And this I am afraid to say that this is a dangerous mentality, and one which is a legitimate threat to society, and should be dealt with. RPG's are not commodities like frying pans, or jeans. While some groups may be outrages at low cut jeans, RPG's will no doubt add exponentially to public instability and unrest (i.e. the chaos we refered to earlier). Is there any circumstance in which you do own the victim? And if our nation is attacked by a hostile force? Some would no doubt contribute to a private army, but others would not. What would be the the plan of contingency.

Why? Do you have any others? What in your view would be more practicable? Survival of those with the biggest guns? (To which someone will respond that the police have guns, so therefore they rule, and they do, but they rule for US and not THEMSELVES). I do not think Columbia or sub-saharan Africa are something we should model ourselves upon. The government is responsible for the greater good, and judicial system for the individual. It's a self regulating system which attains a sense of equilibrium if everything works correctly. I have a feeling you are just going to bow out of debate like Ms. Royal, asking more questions without answering a single one. No. The state teaches, through various organs. If they just "imposed" the law, than our learning curve would be trial and error. No one is going to sell "crack" and excuse their actions by saying they didn't know it was illegal. P.S. I do retract that previous statement directed towards ExPLOItEd.

Sadly it's only in French, but if you've ever seen the film Amelie Poulain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35OvPW9jjBU

What are you refering to? Hope it's not Germany (33-45). Is that how the laws came to be? Quite a different take on history. I was under the impression that shortly after Hitler's election, a democracy was in essence, no more, since all legislative powers were esentially "handed" to the Nazi's. Feel free. But don't expect sympathy or support when face a face to sanctions. That is called a Mob Rule. I am refering to a democracy (see my definition) as we know in Canada, U.S, Japan, most of Europe, India, etc. You may consider Iraq a full blown democracy but I don't. The simple act of voting (at least in my books, and most others) does not make a democracy. But if you choose to define it as such, feel free. Please show. I am curious. And remember, wrongs can happen (as I stated), the difference is that they are corrected by these "mechanisms" Absurd? Of course it is, since you attributed something to myself that I am a proponant against. The state teaches law, not morality. Really. THEFT - The myth of Robin Hood, (a.k.a. stealing from the rich to give to the poor) is widely accepted by socialists the world over. May Day was yersterday, and already, we have forgotten Mr. Chavez. MURDER - Honour killings, sacrificies, war, all manifestations of different moral outlooks which DO NOT hold murder to be wrong. RAPE - In a few (been a while since I brushed up on my anthro) pre- legal,morally based primitive societies, it is still a valid, morally correct manner of settling property disputes. Bottom line, if these elements were all morally wrong, and we are dictated by our morality, than why do these things occur?

Fingers crossed behind their back. Of course they want them, this is just a diplomatic manner of saying "we cannot afford them.......just yet.....but the moment we can, we will, regardless of what other nations have to say". It has been said that diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a manner that they will look forward to their journey. Remember, China also states that it is based on fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to a fair trial, freedom of religion, universal voting rights.... May I remind you, China also recently, and unexpectedly, destroyed an orbiting satellite to test a ground based system for spatial combat.

I agree in the sense that it MAY become a big issue once a group reaches a critical mass. But I disagree that it WILL. Rather than pure numbers, we should also examine the cultures behind this migratory process. The fact of the matter is, certain cultures are very insular by nature, often very paternalistic and undaunted in their efforts to keep what they seem as foreign, out at ALL costs. Others, are not only accepting and tolerant, but actively seek out to copy that which is best. This was my little hypothesis behind the stagnation in the middle east, because the forces of conservatism/fundamentalism were winning over the forces of progress. (And than I found out such a hypothesis was already proposed by the British academic Paul Johnson a year earlier.) And it is also applicable to the amazing progress taking place in Japan post war, Korea, Taiwan and now China. They don't reject western methods, western values, they embrace them. It seems when a lot of Chinese immigrants come here, they don't play their own game, they try to beat us at our (I guess your, since I too am a new comer )game. Once they attain a certain linguistic or cultural threshold, integration is a natural process. And besides, some friendly competition never hurt anybody. In sum, the starkest evidence is a tale of two nations and the gulf of differences between them : India and Pakistan.

Right. Australia's is brilliant. Record levels of social cohesion in the past few years. I am currently in the process of bringing someone from down south into Canada, and I assure, it's not that easy despite this person possessing the highest possible qualifications. And yes, that video is just a metaphor for each and everyone of the millions of immigrants who came here, it speaks much more than official process. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/skilled/assess/Education.asp In fact, they should screen not only for police background checks when immigrating, but also one's propensity to argue at Niagara Falls. Not quite, but a few sources I value. But who needs math, and geeky men with bad suits and lots of book who call themselves "econo-met-rishians er sumfin' when I saw me dat der vee-deo on yuu-tube" P.S. You don't need to be Catholic to go to Catholic School

Okay fair enough. Let's put this in a situational context. - Do you feel that stopping at a red light is a violation of your freedom (i.e. wrong). - If you were bent on taking part in an honour killing, and the "victim", due to cultural circumstances, does not wish to bring her family more "shame" by informing the authorities, and the state intervenes to stop this act, would yo consider it a violation of YOUR freedom. - If you choose to say, sell explosives or RPG's out of the back of your car to the higgest bidder, and the state intervenes in your commercial transactions, is that wrong? It seems we always claim we don't need the government......until our house is on fire, or our roads are no longer drivable, or our life is in danger, or we were treated unfairly. In other words, when the times are good, fegetabouhdem' , but when they turn sour, we come whimpering back for more.

But that's the point of AMD. There are only about 5 other nations capable of overcoming AMD either through technology, or sheer numbers, or both (the 4 other SC members plus Japan, which dosen't actually have nukes), and only one nation really has the proven capability to do so (Russia but they will not share for it would threaten their own regional supremacy) The very point of AMD is that rogue states such as Iran and N.Korea could not conceivably get up and build a system any time soon, no matter how much they want. Whereas if the US were to skip on AMD, other nations would still be seeking to develop their own technology, and that would have a huge effect on the balance of power.

And just to build on top of Guysers post, like it or not, we need immigrants to survive. We always have, and we always will. *And we should be thankful to have the worlds most effective immigration policy in place here.*

So, in political terms, you are somewhere between a libertarian and (closet) anarchist, correct? So you believe that there are "powers that be" which control us i.e "ultimate control". Please feel free to explain, who are these powers? Please define morality? (If you care to see mine, dig up my post or go my homepage and scroll down.) Mind you I find morality to be non existent in laws stating we must drive on the right hand side of the road. Do you? There is nothing inherently good, or inherently evil about choosing to drive on one side of the road over another. While this law leads us to the same ends (instituting a law, so as to prevent chaos, so as to reduce fatalities), this arbitrary decision was devoid of all morality, and regardless of your personal morality, must be respected. And to take a page out of Hart, we can use morality to evaluate the law, but it was not based on morality [even though the Christian tradition believes the "right" to be good (side of God), and "left" to be evil (side of Satan)].

What does Seuol ( I garner you mean Seoul) have to do with ICBM's? Were you refering to Pyong Yang perhaps? Or Seoul since they would be a victim of agression? But should that Kim Jong Il decide to the threaten Seoul, he would do so through conventional means since there is enough fire power to flatten it. I doubt he would "waste" a nuclear weapon S. Korea. I rest my case.