ReeferMadness

My point was that it's dangerous to hope the Republicans pick a crackpot in the hopes that it will give the Dems an easy win.

That's what Fox News says. IDK much about American politics but I would never wish for a crackpot candidate.

Relying on the US to reject the crackpot is a dangerous premise. ATM, Clinton is polling 10 points back of Carson. We might think it's a bit scary for someone who takes a literal view of the bible to have the launch codes. Unfortunately, Americans may not find anything wrong with it.

It's hilarious right up to the time when all of the "normal" candidates are out of the running and suddenly, there's a very real chance that one of these wingnuts will wind up with the launch codes. How many "normal" candidates are even left?

Only if he can find a bible passage that tells him that.

Huh. Maybe he does have the stuff to be president. :P

Now, now. Just because Dr. Carson is unable to distinguish between his delusional religious beliefs and objective reality, that's no reason to deny him his dream of being president. Sure, maybe his foreign policy will be guided by the Book of Revelations... and he might mistake some foreign leader for the antichrist.... and he may even think that some massive war is necessary to kick off the rapture.... :wacko: :ph34r: #timetodigabunker

So you think that Hansen's belief in peer reviewed science is exactly the same as Carson claiming that pyramids were granaries because that's his interpretation of a bible story. I can see now why you don't think Carson is crazy.

So, first off, you should understand that Trudeau has committed to voting reform and a process that will involve all parties; but not necessarily proportional representation. He is on record as favoring what he calls ranked ballot (normally called alternative vote or instant runoff voting) and it is not a proportional system. However, if you want to learn about proportional representation, here is a good place to start. ETA: you should also be aware that there are an almost endless number of offshoots and variations to the voting system proposals. Fair Vote Canada is an organization devoted to proportional representation and there are three proposal videos (including one designed by Stephane Dion) here.

Yeah. Too bad - it would have been fun to watch.

I wonder if that has anything to do with Harper staying on as MP.

Back to the topic at hand, according to Stephane Dion, there will be no referendum on the new system. Since it was in their platform, they do have a mandate to change the system. Should be interesting.

I see that Chrystia Freeland has acknowledge opposition to the TPP and is inviting citizen input on a website! I'm almost giddy to see democracy return to Canada.

What preliminary findings? A heat signature? A heat signature might point to an explosion but an explosion doesn't mean a bomb.

Well, Putin is ex-KGB so yeah. But let's be honest with ourselves. When it comes to international politics, there are no good guys. When I first heard the suggestions that it was a bomb, my first thought was how odd it was that the US and the UK were announcing this just a couple days after the event. If it had occurred in the US or the UK, the same authorities would be saying they have to complete the investigation before drawing any conclusions. So, I would say that there are definitely politics behind those pronouncements. My next thought was how can they be certain it was a bomb - do they know who put it there?

So, there are a few things we don't know. We don't know it was a bomb. If it was a bomb, we don't know it was planted by ISIS. If it was ISIS, we don't know how they beat security in Egypt (ie how good was the security). I think it's premature to ask me for a resolution until we have some more facts. But let me ask you this. Assuming that ISIS bombed a commercial jet in Egypt, how is bombing Iraq going to help?

No, I don't have any actual evidence. That's why I said "if I had to guess" instead of "I have some actual evidence". What I do know is that there has been frequent references over the years to Wahabbi schools that teach a particularly fundamentalist view of Islam. I also know that, despite most of the hijackers coming from Saudi Arabia, somehow it was Afghanistan and Iraq that were invaded. I also know that Saudi Arabia is mainly Sunni and that ISIS is comprised of Sunni Muslims.

Let me ask you something. Who is arming ISIS? Nobody seems to know. How is that even possible? Between satellite surveillance, drones, surveillance aircraft, how is it possible they can't figure out who is supporting them? The answer is it isn't possible. There is at least one country that is, tacitly or explicitly, supporting them and there are people who know which countries are implicated. But we're not being told. Why not? If I had to guess, I would say it's Saudi Arabia which seems to be a hotbed of Islamic extremism and immune to international criticism. So, here's what I suggest. I suggest that we demand that our government start being honest about what's going on. And I suggest that the international community line up and start addressing this honestly. And I suggest that whatever actions are taken, they are in the best interests of the people on the ground. Because most of the victims of ISIS aren't in the airplane or in Canada. They're in Iraq and Syria. On an international scale, ISIS is a pimple. But it appeals to everyone with a grievance. And there are lots of people out there with grievances.

As previously mentioned, the mess that is Syria wasn't created in a day. And Syria is a particular case where the US and its allies appeared to be hoping that somehow, both of the main combatants would lose. They didn't want Assad in and they didn't want ISIS in. So, they supported a force which promptly collapsed and disbanded. Or are those 5 remaining soldiers still out there somewhere? And your clever comparison of Iraq and Syria really isn't so clever. Saddam wasn't a nice guy but while he was in power, there was no Al Qaeda or ISIS (contrary to what the lying Bush administration claimed). Deposing Saddam combined with dismantling of the Baathist regime left a power vaccum in Iraq which was filled by Al Qaeda and later ISIS. ISIS was able to use Iraq as a base to move into Syria once the civil war started. If this mess is to be solved, there has to be some sort of agreement amongst the various players (the "west", Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China) and it has to take into account the factions on the ground. Then, you have a chance at a government of the people arising from the results.

I suggest that we understand what is going on and make common cause with regional powers before we do anything at all. I know that isn't a very satisfying answer but I think that there is a convincing case to be made that military action by multiple parties, who hold various contradictory interests in the results, have only made things worse.

I don't know if it has or it hasn't. I don't know who was behind the bombing - or even if it was a bomb at all. I find it curious that the US and the UK have indicated it was a bomb before any investigation has taken place. Clearly, if it was a bomb, it was directed at the Russians who have recently become militarily involved in Syria. Are the governments who are stating it was a bomb trying to panic Russian civilians? "something" meaning anything at all? or "something" meaning something that will improve the situation. I'm OK with doing something that will improve the situation but that implies that we understand enough about the situation to do something meaningful. And I'm sure that governments know more than they're saying but until they tell me what that is, I'd prefer we do nothing. So, far, if you trace the history of the Mujahideen to Al Qaeda to ISIS, it appears that military intervention by western countries has only made things worse. No. That's why I want to ensure that we are only doing something if it will improve the situation.

The vacuum in Syria was created by the civil war. And the mess that is now Syria has its roots in its arbitrary creation by France, its use as a chew-toy by the USSR during the cold war and the interests of the various stronger countries that surround it. Unless and until somebody demonstrates and is willing to elucidate an understanding of the situation that makes sense to adults, I don't support military intervention. In other words, I expect my government to treat me as an intelligent citizen who deserves information, not as a sheep to be manipulated. I know that's a lot to ask but I'm funny that way.

You lamented that Obama pulled out of Iraq after "only" a decade and presented Korea, which the USA occupied for 60 years, as an example of success. I would say I represented your points pretty accurately.

So, first Saddam was like Hitler. Now, ISIS, which was created in the vacuum left after Saddam was deposed, are like Nazis?

We had troops on the ground in Afghanistan. And Iraq. Did it work "once and for all"? No. And there is no reason to think this will be any different. Derek thinks we should occupy (or bomb) the middle east for decades. Do you agree with that?