marcinmoka

Right. That's how democracy works. One day we decide "hey, let's try something else for a change", and the big, mean men with the guns in the corner wanting to make us their subservients will just bow down. No. You claim: P.S. Can you clear up "tickity-boo"? I'm ESL, you must forgive me. P.S.S. Why?

Right. Self preservation is. Thus why I wrote: Certainly an amount we can afford. Do you ever donate to charity? Not to mention, if it prevents the rise of another Talliban, and lowers the risk of terrorism, we can even call it an "insurance" of sorts How do you know so much about the shape of the Talliban? What do their finances look like? What are their resources? What shape is their leadership in? Change dosen’t come over night. We will leave once the Afghani security forces are capable of defending their own homeland. In Canada, we may never fully eliminate organized crime groups. But devoting a few more policing resources in hopes of stemming their activity is better then letting them function without impunity. This is true….when the insurgency has the support of the majority. But the Talliban lacks required the popular support? The key problem here is that the Talliban, although they have minimal support, have the majority of guns. And in a power of vacuum, guns talk. Good job. But what about the will of the majority of Afghani people? Past attempts to shape Afghanistan failed, but because the people resisted the change. This time, the people are embracing the change. They want it more then we do.

It's a long, long winding road. I doubt any of us have done a very indepth investigation of Marxism and the hundreds of branches it has split into. He was a smart man, and I believe his analysis (on it's own) was credible, but his solutions to the problems found by his analysis were flawed, and further skewed by it's various interpreters. He was also a very idealistic man. Many modern Marxists will claim that communism was a perversion of Marxism, and that true Marxism will lead to a wonderful world, and so forth and so forth. But this is what I mean by idealism. He believed that an idea can be promulgated into practice in it's pure form. It can't. Capitalist theory is not the capitalism we know (and hopefully love) today, in fact, the sandwich I made for myself today is not nearly as perfect as the one I had envisioned in my head. But that's life. This perfect economic system is what spawned communism. And as we know, it was a giant failure. Here is a brief, rather unscientific and quickly drawn illustration/explanation on why it was destined to fail. Note, this is far, far, far from genuine Game Theory, for all I did was borrow a Game Matrix. But before you start, let me ask you two questions. Do you lock your car door (or home) when you're not using it? Why? LE VOILA: My Webpage

Thus, re-affirming my case. Are you suggesting that foreign policy decisions are done in vacuum? In all honesty, I don't see how you were able to tie in cookie theft into this discussion, but I would like an explanation. Simple. We took a violent minority who held power in a nation, and relegated them to the caves bordering, where they can no longer excercise their political will with impunity. Have you been living under a rock? Have you not heard about the 2005 elections? Have you not heard about schools being built? Yes. And the Nazi's were Germanic people. Germanic people are Germany. They had a home field advantage. ---- What is your point? So international relations is not "a cookie", but it is a "baseball game". I see. Certainly an amount we can afford. Do you ever donate to charity? Not to mention, if it prevents the rise of another Talliban, and lowers the risk of terrorism, we can even call it an "insurance" of sorts. Yes. Widespread crimes against humanity are widespread crimes against humanity. Do you support them? Based on what? Please share this esoteric secret I've asked you to spill earlier on. I'm skeptical and with good reason. I do not know much about you, but I would be willing to bet you are not a former nor current supreme commander of NATO. How is it that you claim to know, (with apparent certainty) the outcome of Afghanistan even more than the worlds top political, military and economic strategists, both in the NATO nations, as well as the UN, not to mention the Afghani citizenry? And I would very much appreciate a direct response to my questions. We've managed to preserve decorum in this thread (unlike many other threads) and it's nice to carry on in such a manner.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...pnt=290&lb=bras Because in real life, we must take responsability for our actions. Every action has a reaction. If you are a 4 year old child, then I could let that slip. If you are an adult, then I pity you! This is also the reason I wrote: I'm glad Marshall Plan strategists did not have this view of Germany post WWII. So we shouldn't try? You believe that NO MATTER WHAT, they will eventually support a regime as violent as the Talliban?

I'll agree with the above. Morality is subjective. It varies from individual to individual, region to region, sect to sect. While some morals are next to universal (theft, murder, rape are all wrong), laws are complex in their very nature and delve into areas far, far more specific than any sense of universal morality hopes to offer. Trying to impose a universal standard is futile. I too believe laws should not be based on morals. While they very often overlap, "reflection of" and "foundation upon" are two very distinct beasts. Pride yourself on your own morality, just don't make everyone else subject to it. Having said this, a total positivist approach is something to strive for, but morality will never, ever be struck from actual interpretation of the law, since hey, judges are humans too! We just have faith in them (as well as proof) that they are less prone then most of us.

I'll agree with you on that, however his proposed notion of self interest was flawed in that zero-sum game will be the exception and not the rule. We're human. And Marxism overlooked that point.

I'm a very firm believer that the oppressed will always become the oppressors if given the chance. We are human. It's the same forces made the "ruling class" want to rule. JBG, I don't think you're in any shape to drive. Give me the keys to Trabby....

Poverty activists, women's rights, equality, etc. Tell you the truth, I can't say, I can't comment. I haven't any experience with the religious right, just traditional "fiscal" conservatives.

It's random. I've gotten it about 3 times, but mainly I am let through.

And that of the current Afghani population and government. The majority of placards stated: Canada: Out of Afghanistan. Q. Idealism aside, besides NATO, who is the most powerful group in Afghanistan? A. T_____n Q. Since Afghanistan is not yet functioning under the rule of law, and their Government and security is relatively weak, who would be the most likely to fill the power vacuum left by NATO. A. T_____n Black Dog, perhaps you can fill me in on this third way that no one else knows of. I am VERY curious. How can we protect the Afghani population from Talliban all the while bringing our troops home?

No sir. I am yet to link the two, note my reply: All Islamic terrorist groups can be labelled Islamofascists, but MOST Islamofascists are NOT terrorists. You can support the implementation of a very strict Shari'a, and express radical views towards Jews and Westerners, yet without bombing civilians. While I strongly disagree even with the peaceful Islamofascists, this is a democracy and they are not (at least I hope not) hurting anyone. Freedom of expression is a core value which I do not want to see tampered with. The difference between the two is how they express their desire for change. Anyhow, that's not the point of the post. My post was a remark of how two very radically different (if not completely oppoosing) groups and ideas are making the strangest bedfellows.

Why do you consider all who somewhat care about our environment to be lefty's? Is wanting to reduce the risk of global economic collapse and ensuring our own longterm prosperity wrong?

Yes I did. Islamofascism is a term for the small, but very radical or often vocal minority within the greater Muslim population. But should it help:

Funny, I see the Canadian government doing one thing, and I see protesters who oppose this action (with or without realizing what will happen should the government action be terminated). I mean, they definitely were not protesting against bank fees or what have you. So what is this esoteric "real" dilemma?

What about cases such as negligence/involuntary manslaughter (though some punishment should take place in such cases, just to different degrees) or even more pressing, the case of self defense causing death? You still believe there should be no conditions? Part 1, I agree with you in large part. But we must classify offenses. Some people generally refrain from driving at very high and dangerous speeds very often for fear of some sort of sanctions/punishment. In that case, yes it would be a deterrent. But for other laws (generally most criminal laws), agreed, many of the current actors are not rational (if they are aware of the possible consequences) whilst committing the act, and therefore deterrents do not work. But what if these deterrents did not exist? Would there be an increase, especially amongst rational beings (who decide to perpetrate an act seeing as their cost/benefit analysis would tip in favour of benefits since their personal costs, i.e. sanctions are minimal). I genuinely believe so. Anyhow, as per the second part. A car thief may steal a car again, but acts committed,( or even the risk) by sexual predators (especially child molesters) are FAR more detrmental than car thefts. Not many people are going to be seeking counseling if their car gets stolen, whereas victims of predators are often suffering for life. ----------------------------------------------------- Recidivism Rates One research project looked at 61 previous studies of sexual recidivism using a 4-5 year follow up period. This research on sex offenders found that 13.4% recidivated with a sexual offence, 12.2% recidivated with a non-sexual, violent offence and 36.6% recidivated with any other offence.1 A long term follow-up study of child molesters in Canada found that 42% were reconvicted of sexual or violent crime during the 15-30 year follow-up period.2 In addition, the long-term follow-up study (15-30 years) of child molesters showed that the average recidivism rate for this group of offenders is actually lower than the average recidivism rate for non-sexual offenders (61% versus 83.2% respectively for any new conviction). Likelihood of Recidivism The long term follow-up study referred to above included a control group of non-sexual criminals. The highest rate of recidivism (77%) was for those with previous sexual offences, who selected boy victims outside the family and who were never married.3 In general, rapists reoffend more often than child molesters.4 Among child molesters, those with male victims have been found to have the highest recidivism rates, followed by those with unrelated female victims.5 Incest offenders show the lowest recidivism rates of all sexual offenders.6

Well I didn't because a) The would be stupid and very naive. I would of presented it as a proper noun. Well sir, nor is it my doing. But you do seem to be implying that all Islamofascists are terrorists, no? There is a considerable amount of people subscribing to such an ideological stream (though still a minority), but most are devoid of any will to act in an illegal manner. Some use elections, others the court of law in an attempt to bring forth their desire. (Though I do find great irony in the use of democratic institutions to impose non democratic principles) Just seeking clarification.

In this case, yes, and I do think it is a good idea. But would it would be safe to say that sexual predators are of a very different breed then say, your run of the mill car thief? Motivation for committing a crime often varies from crime to crime, even case to case (though most are linked through the fact they are "irrational" acts.

dis·tor·tion (dĭ-stôr'shən) pronunciation n. 2. A statement that twists fact; a misrepresentation. Wow. Thank you. But I take it you've never heard of the Muslim Brotherhood. That's like saying "Klu Klux Klan" - and then pointing out "Klan" means tightly knit group and that's all there is to say about them. Notice - "Brotherhood" not "brotherhood" The capital implies a proper noun. Or Columbia Encyclopedia: officially Jamiat al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun [Arab.,=Society of Muslim Brothers], religious and political organization founded (1928) in Egypt by Hasan al-Banna. Early opposed to secular tendencies in Islamic nations, the organization has sought to foster a return to the original precepts of the Qur’an. It grew rapidly, establishing an educational, economic, military, and political infrastructure. Threatened by its power, Egypt’s government twice banned (1948, 1954) the organization. It has since existed largely as a clandestine but militant group, marked by its rejection of Western influences. The Muslim Brotherhood remains strong in Egypt, Syria, Sudan, and other Arab countries and has resorted to acts of political violence. It was permitted to operate openly in Egypt in the late 1980s and early 90s after disavowing violence in the 1970s, but the government again moved against the group in the mid- and late 1990s. Members have been elected to Egypt’s parliament as independents. In Jordan the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm, the Islamic Action Front, is an important opposition party. The Muslim Brotherhood has given rise to a number of more militant and violent organizations, such as Hamas, Gama’a al-Islamiya, and Islamic Jihad. If I avoided the question like you, yes they would. I repeat: Not "why", but "which" do YOU choose". Where? Funny, I don't re-call using that term. I made a joke (unless a smiley face has some alternate connotations for you) about radical NDP, but hardly this connection you speak of. But here is some more reading: http://www.adl.org/terrorism/symbols/musli...otherhood_1.asp

By the way, please don't distort my posts: Yes, they are members, but had you preceded the portion "members of the Muslim community" with "radical", than I would of let it pass. The minority who wears Burkas or supports the Muslim Brotherhood is not even remotely representative of the whole Muslim community. You should know better. They are a fraction, albeit a far more radical fraction. Most Muslims immigrated here for the same reason we did, peace, prosperity and to be removed from the region we left behind. The ultimate point of my post: Maybe what they were protesting against wasn't really too thought out. Anger can cloud rational judgement

They were marching AGAINST Canadian involvment in Afghanistan. What is Canada's current objective in Afghanistan? (keep in mind it is a NATO combat mission, not a UN peacekeeping mission). Who are they to combat? Realistically, you can't have both worlds, i.e. No NATO military involvement and a stabilized Taliban-free Afghanistan? Choose one or the other. Which one do you choose, Guyser?

Nope. I was just looking at photos of Toronto on FLICKR.COM. It took place a few months ago but was refreshed today upon seeing a "Canada out of Afghanistan" sticker on campus. What else would you call the Taliban? If NATO would pull out, who do you think will set up shop? A liberal democratic institution overnight? I bet so too. Perhaps out of simple "naivety" they were protesting in what may of seemed as "just cause", but in reality was an implicit wish to get the Taliban back into power. Think of the "books not bombs" placard. It's a genuine, sincere wish which would do much good. But without those bombs, the Taliban would be back in power, and then what good are the books, except for mass burnings of evil "infidel propaganda". Or take the case of womens rights, which is AN EXTREMELY VALID CAUSE. If the protesters got their way, would that not be an ENORMOUS SETBACK for womens rights?

.

I was recently looking at photos of Anti-Canadian Involvement in Afgahnistan (and by default unfortunately, pro-Taliban ) demonstrations in the Toronto, and I was puzzled by what I saw. Marching in unison, there were Burka clad women and leftist feminists, secular peacenicks walking alongside members of the Muslim Brotherhood. WHAT THE ??? Not only was I puzzled, I was laughing a bit too. Lefty's generally preached from their Ivory Towers how they always have the "Moral High Ground". Bullocks. Here they were, protesting a war which one of it's stated goals. Most were protesting war, which is respectable some times. But did they ever STOP and THINK about the consequences of Canada and our NATO allies pulling out? Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Left has no more "ideological partnerships". Yet there is the constant need to "rebel" and denounce the STATUS QUO. So since communists are pretty much extinct, by default and perhaps without careful cotemplation, the only major and vocal group with whom they can show solidarity , which sadly in our day, are ISLAMFASCISTS Why? They are anti American, and if America embodies "Raw Capitalism", than anything which seeks to destroy it must be good. Including Islamic fundamentalism. How sad. * I fear the day when this is taken to far by impressionable youth. God forbid the day when you see a hostage video of men with Kalashnikovs wearing ski masks, but the Hamas green has been replaced with NDP orange * The strangest image I saw at the Toronto rally, a placard stating "BOOKS NOT BOMBS" Right, because if the Taliban came back into power, they would permit books by the millions.

GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES IRREGULARITIES. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT SCIENCE SAYS WILL HAPPEN.