Chris in KW

This kind of gross generalization doesn't lend much credibility to your argument.

My point is not that we "can't" invade other countries.... Obviously, the US military is all over the place. Canada has more or less taken part in it. And once you've started a war, withdrawal is not always a great solution. The point I was trying to make is that attacking Iran (as I see it, the only way to stop them from making nuclear weapons) is not worth it. It creates huge problems that stick around for many years, and there is no political will to fix those problems. And despite all the posts in this thread about Iran being Nazi-lovers, I don't think they're really planning to use nuclear weapons.

I think there are a few historical reasons why the Israeli / Palestinian issues are so loaded, and that form a backdrop for issues. 1. It seems obvious, but the extreme persecution and genocide against Jews in WW2 created widespread sympathy for Israel on an emotional level, that still exists today. Basically, many people believe that Israel is justified in pursuing extreme measures because of the horrors of the holocaust. I won't offer an opinion on this except to say that it's a factor that influences every opinion on Israel. 2. Christianity's obsession with the holy land. You can go to many protestant Christian churches in Canada and find pamphlets re. Israel. Some of these are tourist in nature (come see where Jesus lived). However, many of them tie the Old Testament notion of the Children of Israel and the promised land, to the modern nation of Israel. The idea is that Christians must support Israel because of this tie. In my opinion (as a Christian), this link between Christianity and Israel is not an important one. The only real link in my opinion is that Jesus lived in that area. To me, the "holy land" is only interesting for historical and current political reasons (not religious ones). However, the fact is that some Christians have a fuzzy notion that modern Israel's struggle is in some way important to their faith. And as a result, these folks do not take the time to clearly understand the current political & economic issues, and are blindly arguing pro-Israel. That's at least part of the undercurrent that makes this an extremely emotional issue.

Of course Saddam was a bad guy. My point is that that has nothing to do with why the US attacked Iraq. ok.... and because we've done it, it's right?? Ok.... this scenario is a LITTLE bit different from World War 2. For one thing, the US attacked Iraq without the support of most its allies, and against the advice of many of them. There simply was no good reason to attack Iraq. That's VERY different from the Pearl Harbor attacks that brought the US into World War 2. Also, the United States did not attack Japan, remove a strong-man dicator, then leave the country with a power-vacuum and new leadership that is viable only when propped up by US troops. If you think the war in Iraq is over (and won?!?), you'd better think again. If the US withdraws troops in the next few years, there will be a massive civil war in Iraq, which will be a direct result of the power vacuum left by the US. The US may have won every battle they fought, but the long-term result of that war will have been massive destabilization of a country that was fairly stable when the war started.

Two things: 1. The US did not invade Iraq to take out nuclear plants or weapons. They used WMD as a red-herring excuse, and when it turned out that that was wrong, they came up with the Saddam-is-a-bad-guy excuse. 2. You're using the war in Iraq as an example of success?!?!? We (meaning the US, or the west) cannot arbitrarily attack any country we don't like, destroy its weapons capabilities, and somehow claim this is either a moral (or a practical) victory. There might be some countries that you hate enough to trick yourself into believing that a"pre-emptive military strike" is ok. But that doesn't make it right. It doesn't change the fact that this approach is morally, ethically, practically and in every other way, stupid. It fuels the extremist sentiments on both sides, and prolongs war, stifles economies, and basically creates hatred against the west.

Not sure what you're talking about. I questioned the relevance of Iran's ties to Nazi Germany, and as a result you suggested that that gives me membership in some "A-bombs for everybody" club.... Not sure what that has to do with some Pakistani guy who's giving away nuclear secrets. I get the fact that you don't like Iran. But the WW2 Nazi connection is not really a compelling reason any more. None of this has much to do with the original thread. My opinion about "allowing" Iran to have nuclear weapons, is that I don't know.. (but I'm not sure we can stop them short of bombing plants, which is stupid). The US has already created enough fanaticism in the middle east -- we sure as hell don't need a war with Iran to fan those flames. I'm sure the US would "win", the same way they "won" the war in Iraq. I don't see other countries (even "extremists" like North Korea or Pakistan) being eager to join the club of nations who have used atomic weapons in war. BTW, that club currently contains only one member.

Wow Argus, this *sounds* like skinhead/white supremacist rhetoric. Now you're sounding like a disgruntled racist cop. How many arrests have you seen over the past 20 years? Were the people arrested recent immigrants? Were they refugees? At what point do immigrants stop being "immigrants" and become Canadian? Right, of course. Trudeau created street crime by letting in the immigrants.

Well, i am pretty socialist, and I don't see where the unions are helping the economy. Getting rid of all unions would not mean that all of these jobs would evaporate -- it would probably mean forcing currently-unionized employees to accept industry-standard wages and benefits. It would certainly mean losing some jobs, and that GM employees (for example) would make less money. It would also make Canadian and US car companies much more competitive with Toyota et al. I believe strongly that somewhere inside the bloated carcass of GM there is a viable car company who can do more than just make pretty cars. Getting rid of the unions would be similar to what a lot of good companies (and workforces) have chosen to do in hard times: take paycuts and reduced hours to keep the company alive.

Wow, that's quite a leap!

I was questioning the relevance of this topic (Iran's ties to Nazi Germany) to the thread (Why can't Iran have nuclear power).

So now we're judging countries based on their affiliation in the world wars? Are we going to add Italy, Japan and Turkey to the list of countries who aren't allowed to have nuclear power? Or Austria, since they were fairly sympathetic to the Nazis? All this old history may be true (and yes, you can find holocaust-deniers in the middle east). But it has nothing to do with recent policies on Iran, which were based on Cheney-style paranoia.

Hm... This is interesting. Now, in my opinion, the actual crime of the church is that they covered up the original crimes. So we're not saying that the RC church (as an organization) is guilty of the actual offense, but I guess the argument is that they were aware and didn't stop it? The article doesn't really go into that. Hypothetical question - if a different organization (eg, organizers of minor-league hockey) had covered up crimes of this nature, would our court system be penalizing the organization the same way? Do we abhor the Catholic church's sins more because of our belief that as a religious organization they should be better?

It's funny how a group of people (acting as a group) can justify things that the individuals in that group would never try to justify on their own. That's true of religious and political groups, and corporations. There's a fascinating documentary (I think it's called "The Corporation") that describes how and why corporations came about. Watch it (critically), even if you label it as left-wing nonsense. I see they now have a website that promotes "corporate harm reduction": http://www.thecorporation.com/ Well, i don't think that's the right question to ask. Your question assumes failure. The question is, how can we limit corporate power (or mandate corporate ethics, or regulate corporate activity) to reduce abuses, or at least make corporations pay to fix mistakes?

Not only do I disagree with this statement from the unions, but even as a liberal, I find it hard to believe that unions have any credibility anymore. In the early part of the 20th century, unions were an inspiring and needed force. They changed things for the better in North America and Europe. Most of the really important things that unions asked for (back then) became part of Canadian law, and that's a good thing. Today, unions are what's wrong with our economy. They promote a false sense of entitlement that is not linked to economic sustainability. The only good thing about a potential GM bankruptcy would be if it could ditch its' unions. Sadly, Obama is not able or willing to go in that direction. Countries like China and India might benefit from a well-organized labour movement. But I don't see what useful purpose unions serve here. In my job, I have spent quite a bit of time contracted out to other companies. In my experience, the worst organizations to work in are unionized ones. They're incredibly inefficient and it's hard to get anything done.

If you mean that the health care system will never be able to save every patient, then yes, I guess it's fundamentally flawed. And yes, each patient IS a drain on resources. Not sure how you'd propose a system where that's not the case. There are some clear-cut situations where more money and resources will save lives, or buy time. However, I think in developed countries, we will reach a point where we're pouring so much money and resources into health care that we will see rapidly diminishing returns on healthcare investments. This is especially becoming a problem in our old age -- many of us seem unable to accept the inevitable fact of our own deaths. Does it make sense (budget-wise) to put an 85-year old in intensive care to prolong his bout with some incurable disease? Most hospitals try to avoid that, even though it may seem cruel to that person's family. The point is not that we shouldn't treat old people, but that we have to think about health-care investment in terms of what it is achieving. And the people who make the budgets will never be able to satisfy everyone. We can spend our entire GDP on health care... we'll all still die. How's that for a gloomy thought of the day!

Yes, that's true. If throwing the doors wide open would actually "save" the world, that would be fine. But opening the doors too wide is dangerous. This is the problem in France and Germany, I think. It's much more important to allow the right number of immigrants, than it is to pretend that whatever rules we have in place will protect us from the bad ones. What's the right number? The number who we can absorb into our economy successfully (meaning that both they and our economy benefit). The problems in France are due to high unemployment and ghetto-ization, not inherent hatred between ethnic groups, or the inherent problems in the immigrant community.

Actually, I would argue strongly that it's not a different world now. Yes, the World Trade Centre bombings were shocking. But we have tended to adopt a blind response to that bombing. I refuse to call the World Trade Centre bombings "Nine eleven", because it seems that whenever someone uses that phrase, they turn their brains off. Terrorism was going on before the WTC bombings, and will always continue to happen. The vast majority of it happens outside North America (even if you ignore Iraq and Afghanistan). I'm not saying that it won't kill Americans and Canadians in the future. I'm just saying that it shouldn't determine our policies. Refugee policy has VERY little to do with our safety from terrorists. The vast majority of refugees are fleeing violence, religious intolerance, etc etc. I'm not saying we shouldn't scrutinize refugee applicants. It's likely that in future, some "terrorists" will get in "as refugees". Start looking clearly at terrorism, and what it is. Be informed about the actual extent of terrorist activities around the world. Even if you factor in 2001, terrorism is not statistically a huge factor for the US. Here's an example of US statistics from 2005 (just happens to be a year I could find some stats for). In that year, 85 US "private citizens" were kidnapped, killed, or injured by terrorist organizations around the world. Yes, that's too many. But it's not a huge number. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65498.pdf In 2005, over 43000 "private US citizens" were killed in traffic accidents. Where is the "war on traffic"? We would do more for the safety of our society by imposing driver training on immigrants than we would by investing that money in futile guessing games about which refugees might be terrorists.

You know, I also had been looking at the recent events in Israel, and thinking "Isn't this disproportionate response? Isn't Israel just adding to the problem? However, I was recently talking to an (Egyptian) friend of mine who is very familiar with the issue. I asked him "why doesn't Israel just offer to make Gaza an independent country? Wouldn't that solve it? He replied that Israel has made such offers in the past, and the palestinians have ignored them. One example is the Camp David summit in 2000, where Arafat rejected a seemingly good offer brokered by Clinton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Pales...mmit_.282000.29 I'm no longer so sure that Israel is the bully here....

Yep... Phelps swims really fast... That's it. He's a remarkable swimmer, not a remarkable anything else. Just like Barry Bonds is a great hitter of baseballs. Anyone who wants to put him on a pedestal deserves to be disappointed by his (extremely large) feet of clay. Sorry, couldn't resist that And yes, smoking some pot doesn't really make his giant feet clay anyway.

So, basically, you're saying that: - your parents were "loyal" to Canada because they never asked anyone to change the anthem - all recent immigrants are disloyal because they think you're inferior (not sure why this makes them geeks) - Trudeau was ugly ok.... good to know how you feel! Anything practical to say about this stuff?

Finally! This is an argument that I, as a Christian, can respect. It's based on careful thought, and it's logical. I'm not going to carry on the debate (though we could probably add a new thread and carry it on for months if we wanted to). But I do want to respond to all the people who have said "What's the point of debate between Christians and Atheists?" I would say that, if it's good debate, it makes us all better. Many of the catastrophes of world history have been caused by stupid group think. At least lets make a habit of examining our assumptions, ESPECIALLY when they're about closely-held beliefs such as faith (or UNfaith). Of course, when the debate is of the Mr Canada type, it just makes us all stupider.

Again with the fairies! Still, I think we're doing better. We're actually starting to look at assumptions, not just stereotypes. Ok, you've made a good statement. So go on - what's the link between Darwinian evolution and this "neurological quirk"? What is it about "survival of the fittest" that leads to this universal human trait, as you've called it? Are you saying that because lots of different cultures have tried to come up with a concept of God/gods/deification means that it's neurological/inborn/innate? Isn't it just as fair to say that because it's a universal human trait, it's based on some inherent trait of the universe (ie, the existence of god)?

Sorry, thought you were referring to something else. If you want to discuss "evolutionary source of mans wanton invention of deities", I guess we can do that. Btw, I enjoy your use of the word "wanton", but it doesn't really add credibility to the statement. First, if you want to discuss that statement, enlarge on it a little. I assume that what you mean is that religion is a manmade tool to oppress and achieve dominance by the religious leaders. And, you know what? I agree that religion has served exactly that purpose for much of history. As I've said before, I'm not a huge fan of religion. Where it's used to oppress and dominate, I actively oppose it. I accept that evolution is a real, active force in the world. I don't think that means I have to accept that God is a manmade invention driven by evolutionary forces. I think God exists, even though many religions that attempt (more or less sincerely) to understand God, are faulty. Basically, your assumption is that religion MUST BE bad (as opposed to my assumption that religion CAN BE bad). I think that's because you can't accept that it can be positive.

I'm not arguing with your definition -- I agree, that's what it means. Btw, I already responded to ToadBrother's attack of my use of the phrase "Darwinian notion". He didn't like the fact that I called an accepted law of science a "notion". Read my post in reponse to ToadBrother... that was my main point.

I agree with you. I wouldn't be a Christian if I thought that's what it was about. Excellent points. Of course, if you ask 1000 Christians, you'll probably get 1000 slightly (or very) different viewpoints about what is important in Christianity. Again, if you ask 1000 atheists, you'll find that they also have different views, as well as different grounds for their beliefs.