ScottSA

The trouble with stuff like this is that it is presented as objective reporting when it's clearly not. Look, for instance, at the "myth" that the hockey stick was wrong. The article actually confirms that it's wrong, but couches the admission in terms that make it appear "not far off the mark." I'm sure one can retreat the the old standby that all the bad guys are funded by "vested interests" and the oil companies, but not only is that not true, but to the extent that it is, it's true for the other side as well. Try getting a research grant for arguing that GW isn't human caused. Just try it. Try getting tenure. This nothing new...it happens all the time, and especially in the hard sciences. You're absolutely correct that people refuse to change their stance in theface of new information...but that works both ways.

That's a bit ideologuish, wouldn't you say?

not only have I looked at a map, I seen a timeline, read books and why oh why did you leave the rest of my post out, here it is , http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_Allied_nat...ing_World_War_2 Many scholars agree that the USSR (Soviet Union, Russia) is most responsible for defeating Germany in World War 2, but that they could not have done it without the US and UK on the Western Front. "Without doubt, the USSR played the largest part in holding the Nazi expansion and therefore in winning WW2. " "It's obvious that the Russians faced the bulk of the German army and I have the deepest respect for the Russian soldier." Look at the amount of casulaties on the varying fronts easter vs western you will see where the greatest fighting was taking place. Therefore the USSR was going full guns and would have taken all of Europe the "alliance" inc the US/ Britian and Russia, was over before it had begun since the Brits and Americans did ZERO to aid Russia. you are not worth my time! I'm afraid you just don't get it. You're not even arguing the same point. No one is disputing the fact that the hardest fighting took place on the eastern front. In fact, Stalingrad was probably the most vicous battle in human history. But that's not the point. The point is that the USSR entered the war well after the allies, so it's silly to argue that the allies entered the war to stop the USSR. Further, the first year of the barbarossa invasion saw the USSR in full rout, and it was widely expected across the globe that the USSR would be overrun by 1943 at the latest.

I'm not sure why the USSR retreated in full rout all the way to Moscow, leaving their equipment and dead strewn all along the way. Perhaps you could explain this to us?

Tantruming kids don't want to listen, reason, or anything else. They want to tantrum. A sharp swat on the butt helps focus their attention, at which point all this reasoning actually means something more than "blah blah blah, Ginger, blah blah." And I've never understood the idea that bribery is somehow better than spanking as a means of child control.

Uhhhh.... The allies joined WW2 in 1939... Germany and SU did not start to fight until after this... ergo, your tripe is just that, tripe. This doesn't make any sense and is just plain wrong. The Allies were fighting the fight before Germany and the SU even started fighting. You shouldn't talk about stuff you have clearly have no clue about unless you enjoy looking like a fool? Unfortunately current historiography doesn't much care about the facts. It's like the 800 year lag in GW and CO2...what's a few hundred years if it doesn't fit the theory? Kuzzad knows, somewhere deep in his socialist soul, that the capitalist plots were so powerfully prescient that they knew not only that Germany would attack the USSR in 1941, but that over a year after that, the Germans would actually start losing instead of winning! So they pre-emptively and visciously attacked Germany on the trumped up excuse that germany invaded poland. Not only that, but the arch capitalists in Washington cleverly got the bejezus bombed out of them by the Japanese so the germans would declare war on them too, so they could stop the USSR from overrunning Europe, even though at the time the USSR was in full retreat and everyone thought was lost. Now, if I can only get those crafty capitalist plotters to divine the future of the stock market for me... see, people who don't have a clue embarrass themselves over and over. Look at a map, okay? Perhaps after looking at a map, you ought to glance at a timeline. You really ought to back away from this argument as quickly and as quietly as possible.

But that should apply equally to men. In many species, it is the male who shows physical attributes to attract females. The genetic code of both the female and male are required and are determinant in teh success of any offspring.Sorry to be tiresome but your response strikes me as simplistic. "Should" is the operative here. It "should" apply equally according to the thesis of gender equity we're all so used to, but not, apparently, to biology. Other species are irrelevant...if we were talking about elephants or moles, than elephants and moles would be relevant, but we're not and they're not. It is precisely because of genetics that these value judgements are made...a woman can't investigate a man's genetic code, so the only measure she can use is those she can see. Same with the man. This is only simplistic if one looks at it simplistically.

Uhhhh.... The allies joined WW2 in 1939... Germany and SU did not start to fight until after this... ergo, your tripe is just that, tripe. This doesn't make any sense and is just plain wrong. The Allies were fighting the fight before Germany and the SU even started fighting. You shouldn't talk about stuff you have clearly have no clue about unless you enjoy looking like a fool? Unfortunately current historiography doesn't much care about the facts. It's like the 800 year lag in GW and CO2...what's a few hundred years if it doesn't fit the theory? Kuzzad knows, somewhere deep in his socialist soul, that the capitalist plots were so powerfully prescient that they knew not only that Germany would attack the USSR in 1941, but that over a year after that, the Germans would actually start losing instead of winning! So they pre-emptively and visciously attacked Germany on the trumped up excuse that germany invaded poland. Not only that, but the arch capitalists in Washington cleverly got the bejezus bombed out of them by the Japanese so the germans would declare war on them too, so they could stop the USSR from overrunning Europe, even though at the time the USSR was in full retreat and everyone thought was lost. Now, if I can only get those crafty capitalist plotters to divine the future of the stock market for me...

I believe the frittering away was the diversion of resources to Iraq before the complete capture of al Qaeda operatives was achieved. I guess this is another one of those urban myths that will hang on along the fringes of leftist thought; that somehow the war in Iraq took resources away from the hunt for al queda. I've never heard anyone explain how this notion works, but perhaps you'll be the first. Are armoured divisions a big help in staring across the border of Pakistan in hopes of catching a glimpse of al queda? Is there something that the US has in Iraq that is imperitive to have in Afghanistan in order to catch al queda operatives in Pakistan? Why? Well, the spring insurgency we were all waiting for turned out to be pretty tame...sort of like the "brutal Afghan winter" we heard so much about some years ago. Are you suggesting we pull out because Pakistan harbours bad guys or that we ought to go into pakistan to pull them out?The lack of commitment from our allies and the inability of the Afghans themselves to bring order to their country makes Canadians question what we are going to be able to achieve.

I never report posts, but I reported the last two posts by this creep...calling for the death of someone here is a bit much; especially a soldier.

I would suggest that Islam has its finger in a disproportionate number of the conflicts around the world today. The reason he was repeating the word over and over is because Islam is involved over and over.

This is a case in point. Not one criticism of her position, just mock aghastness over her style.

The US was already at "war" with Saddam's Iraq long before 9/11. Did Canada and the rest of NATO also have "PNAC" motives for invading Afghanistan? Must have something like this, eh? "Hey, I have a great idea. Let's write our manifesto for world domination, publish it, and then invade Afghanistan....wait a spell, then invade Iraq." Nobody will notice! Brilliant! Devilishly clever plot, I must say.

It's very effective if it's used sparingly enough that it means something. Anyone with well behaved kids knows that.

You're using a partisan blog and the IPPC report to back up your argument?

We participated in the ousting of the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2001. An opportunity was frittered away with the foreign policy George Bush adopted. This is nothing to brag about. It is now 2007 and what could have been a very effective reconstruction effort has turned into the rebirth for an undesired religious and ethnic entity. Karzai should have been able to secure the support of Pashtun tribes with the help of the US, in a similar fashion that the US switched sides to support the Northern Alliance. Karzai could not and didn't achieve a stable Afghanistan because of this oversight and the apathetic nature of US foreign policy towards Afghanistan after the route of the taliban. The common theme of Iraq and Afghanistan, has been the incompetent planning after dominating the battle field. When are you going to signup? You have on a number of occasions mentioned your bravery over the internet. There is plenty of opportunity to enlist, ask to go over and engage the enemy to ensure a NATO victory. You make it sound so whip snap, so easy, but you aren't doing the heavy lifting. When I am going to sign up is none of your business and not at all relevant to this conversation. You don't seem to understand what has been going on in that country. Nothing was "frittered away;" the Canadian mission merely changed from the north to the south; from relative peace to a troubled area, and then began offensive operations. Duh.

Really?...coming to Canada real soon: Cochrane's Mitford Middle School will launch a Christian program this fall. Christian beliefs, including instruction on creationism in science class, will be taught to 50 or so elementary aged students as part of a two-year pilot project. A lot better than having the little dears chanting about martyrdom and lopping off the heads of pigs and apes.

Cut it down for you, as you were, in your own words, bloviating. That word you use...ad hominem I believe? Still mad about those other forums huh? Sorry, didnt mean for the soft spot to get injured. I wouldnt dare if I were face to face with you.? Dont know me then. It would be a pleasure Mr Tough Internet Commando Guy. ...bemused giggles on that one.Thanks! Oh, I don't think you would, little internet pipsqueak guy. Anyway, why do you follow me around making inane juvenile comments? Some kind of repressed homosexual thing?

LMAO Whatever dude. So I can be Jewish without being Jewish? And I can also be Jewish without being Jewish? Does this actually make sense to you? So the Jews of the Holocaust were killed for being Jewish, not for being Jewish? Hahaha Thanks I needed a good laugh. WD is right. You look kind of silly sitting out in the village square howling with glee in the space traditionally reserved for the local idiot. Look up the Nuremberg Laws...they explicitely treated Judaism as a racial characteristic...one is not defined by "half-Jewishness" in the context of religion. Look up the expulsion of the Jews from England and various parts of Europe in the Middle Ages. Judaism has always, as far as historical memory reaches, been treated as both a religion and a race. Hence, for example, the term 'Semetic.'

Everyone seems to have forgotten the near unanimity in the American Congress in denouncing Saddam and calling for war. Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten the months and months of discussion over the inspection regimes and how that was always front and center in the debate over going to war; nationally and internationally. Now all of a sudden, the tinfoil hatters seem to think that 911 was the sole drive in the war against Iraq, when in fact it was at best peripheral.

Could you elaborate on that a bit? I'm still waiting to hear how "liberalism" enters into the "degeneration" of the U.S. and Canada. People seem to be speaking in generalities, but I'd like some specifics here. Is "liberalism" synonymous with "the left" or the Democratic party and the equivilent parties in Canada? If so, I'd say some are straying from the original "fears" that this woman has expressed. Surely the gun laws and the war are not the result of "liberalism." Not to speak for someone else, but I believe he's talking about the moral collapse of society, driven by what have become known in the postwar lexicon as "liberal values." In our society this snowballing trend has resulted in a worldview that proposes "diversity" and "acceptance" as 'good' in and of themselves, with no attention to the object in question.

I've said several times that I think we should leave southern Afghanistan by 2009. I disagreed with the Liberals extending the mission to 2009 because it came with no benchmarks and no indication of relief from our allies. We still have no indication of those things. Are you one of those people who read the book The Secret and believe that wish fulfillment will make victory possible? No. I just not one of those folks who would have claimed WW II was lost after the Battle of the Bulge. Oh, wait, we've already thrashed the Taliban, and you're STILL waiting for imminent defeat.

Oh, and I assume you're talking about Edward I's Statute of Mortmain? I think you'd better read the text of it, or at least some semi-coherent secondary source before you trot it out as the death of feudalism and the rise of the middle class. Just so's you don't continually embarrass yourself with half-understood chatter, you know...

Bemused giggles. Did you have as much fun writing that as I had reading it? You are becoming rather colourful! Naw, I'm just waiting for your bemused giggling to match your argument ability and degenerate into befuddled cackling. How's your reading of Marx coming along? Still trying to google up that elusive 13th century middle class? What were you saying about Edward abolishing feudalism again? *snort*

None, I suppose. Except that you're the one attaching adjectives, so you must have a reason for doing so, eh wot?