Peter F

I don't think firing rockets into Israel from Gaza meets the defenition of 'defence' However the IDF invasion of Gaza to stop Hamas fring rockets into Isreal does meet the definition of 'defence' pretty straitforward really.

I get a kick out of how the concept of 'fatherhood' gets to be turned on and off at will. Sorry folks, doesn't work that way. The man was the father for 16 years and he will remain the father for the rest of the childrens lives. He gets to continue paying the child support he has always been paying. Wether his wife is a bitch or not has nothing to do with it.

You keep comparing the present 'war on terror' (Israel vs hamas, World vs Taliban, World vs Al Queda etc) as a war just like WWII, Vietnam, US Civil War. I suggest the two are nowhere even remotely comparable. In the case of Israel vs Hamas, there is no 'state' with wich the IDF can conduct 'war' and therefore there is no military or industrial or supply base, hell not even a revenue base to direct the IDF against. All the examples of successful wars you produce are high level 'state vs state' wars, wherein there is something to attack; The enemy supplies, the enemy revenue stream, the enemy military. Hamas has none of those things - their whole source of power is the support they recieve from the people in Gaza or Lebanon. Your argument is that in order to destroy Hamas the people of Gaza must feel the pain of supporting Hamas. Much like the people of the CSA suffered for supporting the CSA through Shermans march to the sea. You are not advocating purposeful killing of anyone and everyone, but you are saying civilian casualties should not be a hindrance to IDF actions nor should we condemn the IDF and Israel for civilian casualties that result from their particular march to the sea. In the case of the bombings of Germany and Japan, a case can be made that such action was very important (You would say directly led to) the surrender of both nations. In the case of Germany you are wrong and in the case of Japan you are wrong too. You see, despite all the indiscriminate bombings by the allies Germany didnt surrender because Dresden got smoked. They surrendered because thier entire country from East to West was occupied by allied armies and there was nothing they could do to change it. In Japans case, the emperor got on the radio and told them to endure the unendurable realizing that Japan was doomed to be occupied by the all powerful allies. The indescriminate bombings were instrumental but nowhere near the decisive things you think they were. Apparently, if the Germans had done a far more effective bombing campaign against British in 1940/41 the British would have tossed in the towel and surrendered. IF, as you claim, it is the infliction of suffering and more suffering and more suffering upon civilians that results in victory, then mere occupation of Gaza by the IDF will have no result. You claim that the civilians of Gaza must be made to suffer and suffer some more that will result in Hamas surrendering. The invasion and occupation will not have the result you hope for unless the IDF makes civilian lives miserable for that, in your view, is the only way to stop them from supporting Hamas. And it is you who is the rightious man! Edit to add: When Al Queda flew the planes into the towers and inflicted some suffering on Americans, did you, as an American, even consider for 2 seconds that - you know , maybe the terrorists are right? Maybe we should just put an end to it all and give up? No. Instead you became angry and support prosecuting war against terrorists without regard to anyone who gets killed on the way to that end. So why would Palestinians be any different? This invasion of Gaza may give temporary resipite from Hamas rockets but thats all it will achieve. Nothing more. The term that comes to mind is 'wood shifting'.

Apparently the USofA wants peace that bad: ergo $100 billiion in US foreign aid...and it works! Who gives a hoot what the world wants - its what the US wants that matters...and its getting what it wants.

What the hell are you trying to say? There's not enough dead Iraqi's and/or Afghans yet? More need be killed, be they enemies or not? Far more killing is necessary? as for your historical references about wwII between 1941 and 1944 being 'periferal' and 'not serious' : all those silly little waste-of-time battles in North Africa or Guadalcanal or Iwo Jima or effing Stalingrad for that matter, were all necessary in order to achieve the conditions by wich the allies could bomb the snot out of Germany and Japan - wich they were only able to do because of Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima and Tunisia and Midway and ad nauseum. Do you seriously think the American military is wasting its time effing around with attempting to provide security for democratically elected governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan? They should instead just start killing as many suspected fanatics as possible without regard to civilian casualties? I honestly admit I am astounded at your ignorance and inhumanity.

Lol. You're sure they 'tacitly support.' What more proof does one need?

Fear not; I counted out as a fruitcake bogus christian a long time ago. Happy to see you in the other camp actually. Do please carry on.

what in idiot.... Fetuses have no legal rights nor can they be considered legal human beings until born. A woman can terminate her unwanted pregnancy whenever she so desires. I am a socialist I reject the christ Clear enough for ya?

Yes, that special right is reserved for others.

add Peter F please and thanks

Withdrawl is a lousy form of birth control too. Abortion is ending a pregnancy - not birth control.

good one Bubber. Thanks.

Yes, that is a pile of crap. The child support laws do not refer to mother/father/male/female - they specifically refer to custodial spouse and non-costodial spouse. So I take it that you have not persued the matter with the government. You wouldn't have to deal with your crazy ex in the least if you did. and rightly so. I know this also because my wages are garnished of my child support payments. and in a few days when I go on EI they will be chasing after me to pay. And again, rightly so. They must pay the due child support. All non -custodial parents must. If their financial situation has changed they can apply to have the child support agreement amended to reflect their current income levels - if found legitimate their child support payments will decreased to reflect their new income levels. Fall behind in child support payments and yes the govt will take it from any tax return or garnish wages or sieze passports or not renew drivers licenses. Pay the child support or inform the govt that circumstances have changed. The child deserves it. Spousal support is an entirely different kettle of fish. You have used the phrase 'maintenance enforcement' and 'pay their ex'. Are you confusing spousal support with child support?

Absolutely. Anyone remember the good ol days being advocated here? Divorce courts instructing fathers to pay child support that was never paid because in order to enforce the divorce orders the mother had to find the guy, hire a lawyer and probably a private detective too, then sue the man in court. All well within the means of most single parents... thus the 'deadbeat dad' regulations. Drgreenthumb: Any parent can already do that. Exception being financial and both parents are liable to pay the childs caregiver child support. Wherever do you get the idea that women are not required to pay child support? Because a woman has an the inherent 'right' (if you wish to call it that) to end her pregnancy, no matter what the laws are about abortions, or how many judges can disagree with her or how many of us clasp hands and fall to our knees and pray to god above for her not to have an abortion - Because a woman can end her pregnancy anytime she damn well wants - somehow that bestows on a man an ability to decide to not pay child support for the sole reason that we want him to have equal decision making capacity as her. Its a rediculous contention! A man has never had the 'right' to end a pregnancy short of committing an assault on the pregnant woman. So to make up for that lack of right a man can now disavow his children? I scoff at the contention.

Well, I can't agree. Where will all this freedom to choose to be responsible for the child or not end up? It will end up exactly where we were 10-15 years ago. Many fathers not paying child support and single mothers taking on the financial burden themselves with only minimal support from the government. If the government gave loads of financial support to a single-parent for the duration of the child-raising, I'd sign up to the idea that fathers can come and go as they wish. But the government doesn't so I don't. We are not talking about an unborn child here - we are discussing financial support (if nothing else) to an actual crawling bawling diapered kid. You seem to be saying that a womans decision to carry through on her intentional/unintentional pregnancy is equivalent to a mans decision after the child is born to then have the same choice the woman had prior to the birth - in order to have equal decision making opportunity. I don't buy it. As you say (and I am in full agreement) it is a womans right to choose abortion or not - not the mans. But there is no quid pro quo here. Because the woman had a right to choose doe's not mean that (in financial child support terms) the man suddenly is endowed with a right to choose also - just so's things can equal out. Once the child is born, then financially at the very least, both parents are on the hook to pay. Abortion has nothing to do with child support. They are two entirely different things. To say that because a woman gets to choose to abort her pregnancy so a man should be able to choose to pay child support is illogical and if allowed is detrimental to society not to mention the fathers child.

I think I see where you are going. It would help if you said where you are going, but let me take my best guess based upon the argument presented. I think you are saying that since a male has no control over the womans decision to carry a pregnancy to term or not, the father is absolved of all legal responsibility to any child born as a result of the woman choosing to give birth to the child. In other words; Any child born is solely and completely the legal responsibility of the mother. Fathers should have no legally enforcable responsiblity to any child born. That would be fair, it seems, because the father has been removed from making decisions about conception and pregnancy. It would then be fair that only the mother, who after all chose to concieve and then chose to carry the child to term , should have sole financial responsibility for the child. Am I correct?

Nope.

Six weeks vacation every year for everyone!

Not true at all. No one, parent or not, is forced to care for a child. For society to force anyone, be they natural parents or not, to care for a child is to condemn the child to neglect and abuse. Society recognizes this and no one is forced to raise a child - it is done volountarily. If not by the natural parent/s then by some other volounteer. A mother can abandon her child if she so wishes - so can a father. Niether is forced to raise and care for the child. But both, however, can be forced to pay child support. Note that paying child support is not the same as raising and caring for the child.

Seasons Greetings to all!

Which explains the alleged wage disparity. I suggest private sector employee's fight tooth and nail to retain their wages and benifits if not increase them. I suggest they may find unionization will improve their productivity in this regard.

Good gracious... I suppose we could say Cimino portrays the Vietnamese peasantry as a pretty barbaric and bloodthirsty bunch. Anything more you require from a moviemaker? Perhaps some sort of statement that Cimino is not now nor has ever been a member of the Communist party? What more do you want? The depiction of America as the greatest thing since sliced bread? Fair and Balanced reporting?

I see. Catholic school students have higher ethics and more of a moral compass, becase a public school board investigated violence within the public schools wheras the catholic school board did not. Sorry. Your conclulsions are based on nothing at all.

goody. There's one half of the issue. Now where's the catholic school boards report?

Dancer: So there is no source for your dribble.