segnosaur

Each of these organizations is composed of individual countries who maintain their own political independence. Each member country has the option of withdrawing, or of limiting its involvement. (The exception to this might be military action to prevent genocides and other extreme situations, but such actions are typically short-lived.) It should also be pointed out that for most of these organizations are also limited in scope... the WTO deals only with issues of international trade. The WHO deals only with health issues. Ummm... they're called "roads". Perhaps you might have heard of them? We had various transportation connections for decades. Believe it or not, the ability for countries to engage in trade with each other is usually something viewed as favorable, and something that isn't indicative of an attempt to 'control' anybody. I could simply point out the fact that 'almost' only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, and that that particular proposal basically went nowhere. I could also point out that such tax would still be a voluntary thing for each country. The chair is appointed by the government, sweet the front man is appointed by the government, you think Ben Bernake makes the decisions. Actually, as chair he is very influential in the decisions made by the fed. I could also point out that other members of the fed are also appointed by the government. Yeah but for the most part control of interest rates and the money supply is more reactionary than anything else. Just the opposite... you put interest rates low when the economy is under performing to encourage people to spend and allow business to afford capital purchases. You raise interest rates when the economy is performing strongly, as a measure to slow down growth and reduce the impact of any boom/bust cycles. If they really wanted to destroy the economy, they'd immediately hike interest rates. The use of government 'stimulus' funds to get the economy going again is a cornerstone of Keynsian economic theory. Whether it will work or not in the long term is debatable, but the fact is, the use of stimulus spending is more a symptom of democratically-elected politicians trying to save their own jobs than it is some sort of shadowy puppet government. (The issue of stimulus spending has been hotly debated amongst politicians and citizens, so its not like its some sort of secret plan.) I agree that the government is running a significant debt and may have some trouble handling its obligations in the future. But that's more a sign of politicians and voters being short sighted than anything else. Remember, at one point, Canada had a much higher per-capita deficit than the U.S., yet we managed to eliminate our deficit (at least for a period of time). Not sure why you're claiming that the "federal reserve has to buy bonds". The federal reserve does not have that sort of equity available to cover the U.S. debt. You know, there may be small flaws in the democracies of the western world, but to label it "fascism" is to distort the term and make it totally meaningless. From a pragmatic standpoint, the fact that there is a requirement for some spending in order to get elected is useful in order to prevent elections from turning into a farce. (Remember the 2003 California recall election, that saw such noted political heavyweights as Larry Flynt and Gary Coleman as candidates.) The fact that worldwide we see political shifts across the political spectrum (countries regularly elect right and left wing parties) show that, while having financial backing has some importance, its not the only thing necessary to gain power. I'm talking country. A country goes into debt when its citizens vote for politicians that want to spend more than the government receives in revenue. If people didn't want the country in debt, they'd vote for parties that want to cut spending. Partly by money being printed, partly by the governments allowing banks to lend more than they have in assets (or similar mechanism). Uhhh.. no they don't.

Around 50 million. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf Thanks. Interesting link. Problem is, from the looks of things they're looking at the original Gripen, rather than the updated (and more powerful) Gripen NG.

Ummm... so? There's also NATO, NORAD, OAS, UN. And the NDP is affiliated with Socialist International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International). And the Liberals are affiliated with Liberal International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_International). The fact that people from one country talk with people from other countries with common interests should not be considered surprising or scary. Yet throughout the world you have politicians with ideologies ranging all across the political spectrum, with different ideas on how to handle the economy and social issues. So where's the conspiracy? Can you point to one major politician who has stated that they want 'one world government'? No, they don't. They can take certain actions (change interest rates, print more currency, etc.) that will have some effect, but their overall ability to 'control' the economy is very limited. They cannot control prices (products or wages). They cannot control radical politicians (e.g. Chavez) They cannot control the environment. They cannot control product demand and/or trends. Furthermore, the 'fed' (and other currency controllers) are not some monolithic group. In the U.S., the chair is appointed by the government (which is democratically elected), and the banks that are just as much competitors as co-conspirators. Nope, people put themselves into debt. Its a choice people make. Often people choose wrong, but it still a personal decision. Nope, slavery is slavery. A slave typically had no choice in the matter. People have the choice to go into debt though. And the slave never got any benefit from their enslavement. Those with debt typically received some benefit (be it a new home, car, business, etc.) for the debt. And if no such thing as 'debt' existed, you'd be submitting to labor in order to pay for food, etc. The fact that you can actually go into debt allows a person to delay payment on immediate purchases. I doubt I'd own my home if I had to continue renting while I saved enough to buy a new house. It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. - Winston Churchill

The Gripen NG does seem to be a good plane. (It looks to be slightly faster than the F-35, although even with the more powerful engine I'm not sure if it would have anywhere near the same carrying capacity or range. Also not sure if it has the same stealth characteristics as the F-35. And no, I'm not expecting the 'terrorists' to have advanced radar capability, but we may be in situations where we are involved in combat with countries with at least some technological capability.) I'd be curious about the final cost of the new Gripen though... the page you linked to doesn't give final cost, and I haven't yet found any references anywhere else.

Umm...I assume you meant 'provoke'. Please define what you mean by 'provoke'. If we trade with the 'great Satan' the United States, are we 'provoking' an attack? If we vote at all on any resolution that (for example) a terrorist group disagrees with, are we 'provoking' an attack? If we send humanitarian aid to an area in conflict, are we 'provoking' an attack by one or both sides of the conflict? Tell me, prior to the overthrow of the Taliban, did you think it was OK for women to be stoned for leaving their homes in Afghanistan? You think Canada should just remain silent about that? What if North Korea decides to invade the south. Should Canada be silent if Kim Jong Il decides he wants to control both the north and south? Well, the 'failed state' of Afghanistan back in 2001 managed to end up getting thousands killed and threw the entire world's economy into chaos. Umm... why are you assuming that one method of fighting terrorism (the police) can be done in isolation without the other (i.e. military action)? Both methods have their place. Straw man. Rather pathetic one at that. Nobody here has claimed bin Laden was putting together his own air force. We did give several possible scenarios that we can and should protect against, where military capability has some importance.

Did you ever think that maybe one of the reasons many of those 'nutjobs' exist because the rest of the world hasn't actually taken action to produce a world where human rights and the rule of law are major driving forces? Compelling for whom? Are you considering only self interest? Or do you also consider the plight of humans in other countries to be grounds for military intervention? Would you have gotten Canada involved in World War 2 in 1939? After all, the war was over in Europe. We were at no risk to have our territory invaded by Germany. What about Korea, where a militarily-aggressive North Korea invaded South Korea? What about Kosovo, where there was large-scale displacement and possible genocide against non-combatants? What about Rwamda, where almost 20% of the population was killed? In none of those cases did Canada have benefit significantly (at least economically) from getting involved militarily. However, I'd like to think the moral choice would have been to intervene. Far from it. First of all, keep in mind that 'NATO' involvement basically involves a bunch of independent countries/armies. Each country/army would probably still have the same general level of forces even if NATO didn't exist. Whatever costs that are due to the existence of 'NATO' itself (e.g. infrastructure allowing proper communication among members) is probably a drop in the bucket compared to overall costs. Secondly, I think NATO is much more useful than (lets say) the U.N. when it comes to global security. The countries making up NATO are all democratic, and actually have a real respect for human rights; compare that with the U.N., where many member states are dictatorships and human rights are only given lip service.

Except, as 9/11 has showed us, the airports themselves are not necessarily the targets. You'd have to have those magic missile launchers stationed at every potential target (potentially thousands). Plus, the problem with missiles is that they don't allow visual confirmation. Remember Payne Stewart? He was a golfer who was in a private plane that went off course. NORAD used planes to visually confirm what had happened to the pilots. Never mind the problem of potentially shooting down a plane over urban areas. Flaming wreckage anyone? No, they are equipped with transponders. On 9/11, those transponders were turned off. Result: air traffic control could not find them (even without any sort of fancy acrobatics.)

Our CF-18s can do an OK job. An F-35 can do a better job. Remember, during 9/11, air traffic controllers lost track of the planes that were hijacked. (They had shut off their transponders and were not following pre-determined routes). When NORAD eventually scrambled planes, they were expected that they would have to do at least some searching. The F-35 has a longer range and is slightly faster than the CF-18s we have. Should we have a situation where we have to intercept hijacked planes, we can do a better job if we can fly faster to where they are potentially located and if we can intercept them further out over water (in case they need to be tracked for any length of time.) A Smart Car will do an 'ok' job of transporting you from point A to point B. But a more expensive car provides more options. Even if you think having those options isn't worth the money, they still have at least some value. Now, if that were the only reason to buy the F-35, it might not be worth it, but its not... other reasons (potential to support allies in conflicts to protect innocents, eventual problems with maintenance) have already been discussed.

What, you mean reinspect the passengers if we don't trust foreign security? That won't help if the plane is hijacked en route to Canada, before it ever lands at a Canadian airport. Which doesn't help if the flight crew is somehow lax with security. Why are you assuming they will never make mistakes? Ummm... why are you assuming that he'd need to be 'lucky' to sneak a weapon on board? Or that he'd be able to sneak at most a pocket knife? Fact is, airport security does accidentally let weapons through security. Heck, here's a case of a guy who brought a gun into the airport by accident and they still managed to make it through security. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/23/airport.gun/index.html Why are you assuming martial arts would be some magical solution for our security problems? - You are falsely assuming that such 'martial arts' training would be effective. Yet they'd be going against potential terrorists, who probably have training of their own, and unlike the pilot/passangers/air crew, probably have some real life experience dealing with conflict situations - You are assuming that 'only' a small pocket knife would be the only thing that can be brought on board, when I've already shown that guns have made it through security, and at least twice in the past decade explosives were smuggled on board

I fully agree. More security at airports... Problem is, even if we make our airport security impenetrable, the planes coming in to our airspace are coming from foreign airports, and there is no guarantee that every foreign country with connections to Canada will have the same dedication to security. Remember, there were two well-noted attempts to destroy aircraft post-9/11, using almost identical tactics. You'd figure after the first attempt people would have clued in and tightened security... Sometimes, you're only as safe as your weakest link. Again, you're only as good as your weakest link. Martial arts are of no use if hijackers are armed with firearms. And if I remember correctly, they had lockable doors on the hijacked planes on 9/11. Hey, if you want to argue that we should tighten security, I'd agree. But to assume that such actions are sufficient is a rather dangerous one.

First of all, if we were to rely only in the CF-18, there would come a point where they would become expensive/difficult to maintain. Air frames wear out, parts become difficult to find/replace, etc. It should also be noted that if handling problems in Canada's own airspace is the only concern, then there are still advantages to having the F-35... it has a much longer range (and it slightly faster). So, if it does become necessary to intercept a plane in the arctic (or out to sea) the F-35 gives us more options. Lastly, you are assuming that protecting Canadian air space is the only thing we need to be concerned about. Some of us, however, believe that as members of the global community, it is sometimes our duty to intervene militarily to protect the innocent. Having planes with more capability than the CF-18 is part of the cost of being able to render such assistance.

Ummm... if nothing else, we should at least be prepared for situations along the lines of 9/11 (i.e. hijackings where a plane is currently in control of terrorists.) Granted, during 9/11 there were no military planes that were able to intercept any of the 4 airliners, but we should at least maintain the capability.

Ummm... minor point... According to Wikipedia, the 'flyaway cost' of the Rafale is in the $80-$90 million range. The 'flyaway' cost of the F-35 is roughly $90. So, we might not necessarily be saving much by going with that particular plane (although the 'flyaway' cost may not be the exact cost we'd be paying, it is a rough indication.) As for the other planes you mentioned (Superhornet, Gripen, Mirage), they are definitely cheaper planes, but as others have said, they're also older and we could end up in a situation where we have trouble maintaining them in the long run.

Ok, and? I think his point was the fact that a conference is 'invitation only' is not necessarily uncommon or a sign that there are evil plans involved.

Let me introduce you to a possibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and media. Each conference is closed to the public and the press. It may be "closed to the public/press", but its existence is certainly well known. Not exactly the type of situation you'd expect from some 'secret society' controlling the world from the shadows. And the attendees of the Bilderberg meetings are very diverse... some are representatives of left-leaning socialist groups/parties, quite at odds with the corporate leaders that show up. With the diversity of people who are invited, how come not one has said "Hey I attended the Bilderberg meeting and they're planing to enslave humanity"? For pretty much the same reason that my local city council (as well as the condo association where I used to live) have meetings that are closed to the press/public. Sometimes, topics may need to be discussed privately/in camera. Government officials often have closed-door meetings with their counterparts from other countries. Such matters are the routine activities of government officials, and don't necessarily mean that they are engaged in some secret plot for world domination. Ummm... because of idiots like Alex Jones, who might try to 'crash' the meeting in order to get the inside scoop on things. Probably because its a private function (rather than some state function).

The big question here is, is there any evidence for such a group. The answer is, of course, NO. The economy and political situation has changed radically over the past centuries... If there were some controlling super-group, they would have to have some way to admit new members. You'd have to wonder, in all that time, why has no individual ever come forward to say "I was asked to control the world but I decided not to join"? Of course, I'd also like to point out that in the past century or 2 we've seen amazing advancements in science and politics. Even the poorest welfare recipient in Canada probably has a higher standard of living than even the wealthiest individuals in the 1800s. (More luxuries, longer expected life span, etc.) If that's an example of us being 'controlled', then I'd say "Go ahead, run my life. Maybe in a few years I'll be able to fly to work in my golden tower with my rocket-powered jet pack.". I'm an atheist. I think all religions are wrong. (That doesn't necessarily mean that all religious people are lying; some are simply misguided.) Not sure what relevance that has to the presence of some 'super group' controlling us...

At the risk of getting off-topic.... On paper, I agree, the C-7 has many advantages over the AK-47 (e.g. better accuracy, longer range, etc.) The question is, is it more reliable? (And that's something that isn't really covered in your comparison list.) I recall seeing a documentary where weapons experts compared the AK-47 with the M-16 (of which the C-7 is a variation.) The M-16 beat the AK-47 in pretty much the same categories (accuracy, range, etc.) However, the M-16 were much more high-maintenance and prone to jamming, whereas the AK-47 didn't have the same problems. (Part of that was due to the use of the wrong ammunition type in the early years of M-16 deployment and improper cleaning instructions, but the AK-47, with lower tolerances, is still a bit more reliable.) Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't be buying the F-35. After all, there are different economies that go into buying a fighter plane than buying a rifle.

For some reason, that particular article seems to be combining 2 different tax 'proposals'... Proposal 1 (put forward by various governments) is that a tax be applied to banks, with the money put into a fund to handle future bail-outs. (Almost a form of insurance). Proposal 2 (put forward by various aid groups) is that they apply a tax to banks to fund various anti-poverty programs. (This has nothing to do with the bank bailouts.) These 2 proposals have nothing to do with each other (although the article does seem to blur the distinction a little.)

Well, the article you linked to explains why it might not be a good idea to have such a 'fund'... Flaherty has said the tax would create an incentive for banks to behave recklessly, because they'd feel assured their governments would bail them out again if needed. He added that by removing capital from a financial institution to an external fund it would cut into the bank's bottom line and weaken its ability to absorb losses.

Strangely enough, the West Bank, who did not elect Hamas (a group who has openly called for the destruction of Israel) had no such restrictions on the importation of pasta. The West bank, which had launched far fewer rocket attacks than Gaza over the past years, had no such restriction of Pasta. You know, someone who was able to think reasonably and logically might conclude that Hamas and the terrorists using Gaza as a launch point for terrorist activity might have something to do with the blockade. How about because they are worried that people like you will pre-judge them? Nobody is denying Israel controls the borders of Gaza (well, most of the borders.) Not really sure why its relevant whether Gaza fits the definition of 'occupied' though. It does to a large extent, but Hamas (you know, the group that has called for the destruction of Israel) exerts internal control over the territory (including issues of policing and security). You mean the same 'Goldstone' who, as part of his team investigating the invasion of Gaza, included individuals who had prejudged Israel (and claimed that they would not be on his team if it were an actual criminal investigation)? The same red cross who refused to allow Israel to use the Star of David as its symbol for its version of the 'Red Cross'? The same Amnesty International who sent around a supposed victim of sexual assault during the Gulf War, only to find that the person was a plant? Yeah, the Red Cross and Amnesty International may have done some good work in the past, but that does not mean they should be seen as infallible.

In one of the other threads that you started on the project, another poster referenced a section of Maritime law that pointed out that stopping ships in international water as part of a blockade is acceptable if the destination of the ships is the country/region being blockaded. Since the ships were bound for Gaza (the area that was blockaded) then intercepting them was valid. See: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602 So, you your first argument is a big fat fail. Ummm... No. Whether the port of departure approved the cargo is irrelevant. Since the destination was a region that is in conflict with Israel, then Israel is the one that has to give approval. Israeli security forces have no way to tell whether the country of departure actually did a proper search, or whether any of the ships picked up additional (and illegal) material during its journey. So, your second ardument is another big fat fail Again, read the referred-to article. There is nothing illegal about using force (even leathal force) in self defense. Should be pointed out that other ships that were boarded did not have any loss of life. Perhaps the people on those other boats decided not to try fighting the legal blockade. So, 3 big fat fails so far. Or, more likely, we are able to recognize and understand the issues (such as what Maritime law actually says) instead of just giving a knee-jerk "Evil Israeli" response like you seem to be doing. Perhaps if you don't want to be accused of anti-semitism you should quit starting multiple threads criticizing Israel, while never starting a single thread that I can remember criticizing Hamas, who (as their charter states) wants the destruction of Israel, and is willing to kill school children to accomplish its goals. No, but we do get sick of people automatically criticizing Israel without having a clear understanding of the basic facts.

Really? The Palestinian population has gone up rather a lot over the past few decades. The current growth rate in Gaza is over 3%, and over 2% in the West Bank. This is even higher than the growth rate of Israel (1.6%). If they're attempting to engage in 'genocide', they're doing a very poor job of it. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/we.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html Ummm... last time I checked, Israel was a democracy.

Which doesn't mean that those ships wouldn't have had the chance to have additional illegal cargo added after they left Cyprus. Its a big sea, and there were hundreds of miles between Cyprus and Gaza, which would have afforded plenty of opportunity for mid-sea meet-ups. (Not like the cargo was 'sealed', and its not like the ships would have been under 24 hour watch since leaving port.) If the concern is the transport of illegal materials, then checking cargo at the destination is the only option that guarantees that nothing illegal was added. Ummm.... just out of curiosity, how exactly do you determine the difference between a ship carrying food/medicine, and a ship carrying, for example, explosives? Is there some sort of maritime law that states "ships carrying dangerous goods have to label themselves"? And if you can't tell the difference between a ship carrying illegal goods (like bombs meant to kill Israeli children) and one carrying legal goods, how exactly are you going to stop the illegal goods from coming in? Magic? Perhaps because the Gazans are at least partly responsible for their own situation. It was the citizens of Gaza who decided to elect a party who's charter actually calls for the destruction of Israel, and who's terrorist activities were well known. Perhaps if the citizens of Gaza decided to take some lessons from, lets say, Ghandi and engage in actual peace then Israel would loose any justification for things like blockades and military strikes. Unfortunate that there may be non-Hamas supporters get caught in the crossfire, but Israel also has a duty to protect its own citizens.

I found the movie to be quite disappointing. I had expected a comedy along the lines of Superbad... unexpected/chaotic situations, using the amusement park as a backdrop and source for the humor. Unfortunately, I found it to be very bland. The jokes that were presented were not funny, and neither the characters nor the romantic subplots were particularly engrossing.

I'm not proposing to ban oil You might not be, but the opening post seemed to indicate that was their desire. Well, I guess the whole question is what do you determine as being "responsible"? Is a company responsible if they follow all the laws/regulations, and accidents still happen? Or if they rely on subcontractors who screw up?