idealisttotheend

N Korea developing long range missiles says Jane's I wonder if this will make the US more or less likely to attack N. Korea, them having missiles that can threaten the contenental US? I'm guessing less myself. In any case I'm sure this will be used to argue for missile defence until the cows come home no matter the cost and relative effectiveness of the system.

With all the interest in the military on this forum I thought I'd post this. Richard Gwen on Sudan Are the Americans and the Brits going to end up being the good guys on this one and leaving Canada as the bad guy? How will the Arab connection play vis a vie the United States? Does the situation in Sudan require intervention by the North? Does this justify the argument that the Canadian military is in a deplorable state as I am sure it's no secret that we have no one available to be sent? People argue that spending money on the military takes it away from health care, does this case (and others around the world) provide moral justification for spending money on the military? Don't usually agree with KK but found this post compelling and possibly true despite my insticts that Tredeau was right to decrease defence spending in terms or domestic social services: Look forward to any responses.

I've spent some time in downtown Calgary and MJ is the least of anybody's problem, trust me. Harder drugs yeah, but there are more problems with drunks than potheads. I went to school with a couple of people like that too. Actually in my personal experience marijuana does cause at least medium term problems with memory and learning when heavily abused (but that's just from two cases it's not scientific). The fallacy is Post Hoc. Marijauna is likely not the cause of your friend's problem. If he is abusing it then he/she probably has problems that are leading him/her to "self medicate." They use marijuana to deal with problems in their lives or psychiatric issues. If it wan't marijuana it would be something else and even if it was nothing else they'd still have the problems. Of course they should learn better ways of dealing with their problems but like caesar said it actually can have fewer side effects than medication especially in young people.

You argued that the US's action helped to make the oil more secure through their "police" action. My evidence proves that this is not the case as there were not attacks against oil infrustructure in Iraq prior to America invading. The results speak for themselves as they say. Excellent link In the future Iraq may have nearly 30% of the world's reserves. Iraqi oil is also the cheapest in the world (costing $5 a barrel to extract compare to $20 in Canada) and has some of lowest sulphur content, reducing refining costs. Under Saddam, Iraq's oil was effectively under the control of Russian, Chinese and French oil companies, threatening the hegemony of the American companies. One also wonders at Iraq's position in OPEC and how the American "involvement" in Iraq will effect OPECs future and future decisions. It is not absurd at all to argue the US has an interest in Iraqi oil. But that is not to put the countries who opposed the war on the side of the angels. France and Russina's opposition may have been motivated by their oil interests as well. Just one link of many including books If the US wanted to invade a country over Sept 11 it ought to have started with Saudi Arabia as every reasonable person knows. That's where the terrorists came from, there were no Iraqis flying planes into buildings. And yes there was talk about a meeting or two but these were largely disproved and if Al-Quada has half a brain they will be far more interested in forming links with the terrorists/militants in the US than they ever were with a country that is hated by their leader and goes against all of their fundamental principles. You don't seems to be sticking to any one position here but vacilating between many as you have difficulty proving any of them.

I think that the operative part of the story is that these people joined the military voluntarily. If the draft was in effect then I think that they would have a case but otherwise if you join the military you have to expect to be deployed to a "war" zone. IMO they are rightly subject to persuecution since they agreed to the rules when they signed up.

I was possibly being overly rhetorical. I was refering to this regarding the oil: Attacks on two pipelines and personel Another attack not two hours ago on a pipeline Note that this effectively shut down exports and is pushing world prices up. It is likely to be repeated and was done with inside help. The oil supply does not seem all that secure to me and it's very hard/expensive to guard pipelines once they are identified by the terrorists/insurgents etc. As to post 1991, I was refering to sanctions against Iraq. If the US intended to keep the oil flowing why the crippling sanctions. I will look for the oil numbers since I posted about them. Graph on pg 5 shows that exports dropped from 1 billion barrels a day to almost nil as a result of the US led embargo against the Iraqis This article puts oil revenues at 11 billion for the last 12 month period'

Wise words and elequently put. I ask it be applied equally to Clark and Orchard though, along with all the rest of the red Tories.

In civil society the police come when the coffee shop owner calls them and acts according to rules set by a higher authority (the lawmakers). The coffee shop owner remains in effective control over his premisis. Your example is that of a police state. The police come when they feel like it and act how they wish which is also in their best interests since you admit they are a customer. The police define who is a "crack addict" and is killed and who is not. The police decide who sells what to whom. This is effectively economic totalitarianism and effectively imperialism. In reality, the "coffee shop" owners (OPEC countries) don't seems to like the police very much and don't call them. Therefore the police can not be seen to be acting begningly, In any case, tell me is Iraq selling more or less oil now than pre war? Would you call the Iraq oil supply secure. Any oil pipeline/refinery repair companies likely to go out of buisness in the new future in Iraq. And what about post 1991, how much oil did Iraq sell then, the public .

Sorry, I'll change my analogy. Your house is important to my economy. So I'll secure it and the protect the real estate agent who comes to sell it to one of my friends. You'll get the money and the people who are securing it for me will protect you from any burglurs while they're there and you are in the house. Sounds fair to me. I like stable house prices and a secured market.

You must have more faith in the masses. It took awhile but most people understand that taxes pay for services and you can't have services without taxes. Notice that it is now in vogue to argue against tax cuts in favour of health care. You said: Then you said: effectively seperating Australia's home defence from it's involvement in Iraq. So if the two are seperate then what is their interest in Iraq (hint: FTA with the US). You're right, I am going to have to make that decision. So I am going to have to decide whether or not I want to work for the union wages in Ontario or the wages in China when I make my purchasing decision. People forget the heavily causal relationship between what you purchase and what kind of job is going to be available. But we'll all remember in a couple more years I guarentee you. Afghanistan is a failed state and we are trying (well intentionedly but ultimately vainly) to restore a state there. This does help to combat terrorism (if it worked) but at the end of the day if you are sending a conventional military after all the terrorists of the world you are in for a long long "war." The Russians know this quite well from their involvement in Afghanistan. Agreed. But I would continue to argue for a more peace making role for Canada along with better assertion of our soverignty. We sent plenty of resources to help the Americans after 9/11. This had nothing to do with pulling their own weight but with helping others who need it. I agree completely though that this counrty is in serious need of a whole bunch of airlift capacity. No use arguing about what you got if you can't get it to where it needs to go. We may determine our "responsibilites" have nothing to do with what the Americans think they should be. This is doubly true if you really think that it's alright to control resources belonging to other countries (which the US has been doing since WW2 but may be something it would want to stop doing rather than do more of).

Agreed. Many people also still believe Bush's terrorist connection fantasy also which speaks well to the power of the media.

No, actually it's primary American capital with Bay street kicking in some through it's Toronto based banks. Even the very small amount that comes from Calgary is not "yours" it's whoever has the money. You have no claim to their money especially from your "liberal" viewpoint. Of which you've done done. If that's true then why aren't you fighting to put a stop to it. In any case the argument is regarding oil royalties since any reasonable person would conclude that that is Alberta's sole advantage. EI is a different argument (and I might agree with you there to some extent) we are arguing transfer payments between Ottawa and the provinces.

Stoker's argument was that controlling the oil was a valid reason for invading Iraq even if it was the primary reason (irregarless of all other possible factors including locking babies in cribs)>

TN: You said you lived in SW Calagary. Ain't no oil in SW Calgary. Why should the good people of Leduc and in areas of Alberta that have oil pay for you through the large amount of oil revenues going into provincial coffers? I mean the CHR wastes money by renovating hospitals and then blowing them up (and the CHR is run by people appoited by patronage). So following your logic it would be wrong to share any of these royalties with you. Don't like it? Well then move to Leduc, stop being subsidised by people who don't owe you anything and don't want to share. After all Leducians are tired of paying for your health care and education. Makes sense n'est pas. Good Liberal logic?

Hey Stoker. Your house is an important part of my economy. I think I'll protect it by coming over and occupying it since it is so important me. You agree I assume. I hope you are one of those people who says silly things just get a rise out of people. But then your posts in CND/US relations don't seem to indicate that so I can't wait to read your further arguments to put the world under the hegemony of the United States.

From capital hill blue with picture by AFP Nancy Reagan won't allow Bush to use husband's image/speeches does not support his re-election Capitol Hill Blue does not seem to like Mr. Bush and I searched high and low but couldn't find another site to confirm the story. The Reagan story I could confirm that Mrs. Reagan is speaking out in favour of stem cell research but that's all. So I remain suspicious about whether or not the story is true. Still I wonder. Isn't the Bush story just the kind of thing that would be next to impossible to confirm and so mainstream news organization would touch it? And would the corporate media really publish anything damaging to Bush anymore? As to the story it is certainly plausable but can we ever know the truth?

I have avoided debating the ethics, morality, practicality etc. of the Iraq war and don't think it's a good idea for me to start in this thread. I will wonder though at the logic that says it's heroric to do something that gets the majority of it's proponents thrown out of office. If the source of legitimacy in a democracy is majority vote then wouldn't the fact that all these leaders are getting thrown out be evidence that such a war was not correct? Yes sometimes politicians have to lead and not follow but doesn't the bar have to be pretty high that they are doing the right thing in spite of majority opinion? All things are possible but really. If the Australians are that concerned by the threat posed by Indonesia would it not make more sense to direct their resources there than Iraq? If not military than economic aid etc. If there is a great threat ought the Australians not pour resources into their "home defence" and border/costal security? If the link between Osama and Saddam is weak (in fact they hate each other) the link between Saddam and Islamic fundamentalists in Indonesia is weaker (if for no other reason than those fighting for Islamic fundamentalism would also dislike Saddam who is a secularist). It's not working very well in parts of South America (in fact isn't Brazil fingerprinting Americans entering their country, now there's a country with a soul and some guts). In fact, the Americans are up against the fact that if they want the rest of the world to follow their brand of capitalism then America itself can't use economic blackmail against them. The rule of law cuts both ways. Surely. Just we need trade (and have always needed trade) from more diverse partners including the US. And we need to depend more on ourselves more not just our trading partners, especially in manufacturing and technology sectors. I am prepared to increase defence spending, double I don't know. But we certainly need our own airlift and a bigger navy to assert our soverignty at home. Surveillance of our own coasts is a legitimate need I think we are seriously lacking. I would also like to see us get back into the buisness of serious peace keeping/making and significant resources/eqipment/personel put into this as our contribution to world peace (which, may I point out, is different but not uncomlimentary to how the US sees it's role). But when it comes to pulling our own weight, I don't see that adopting US style military spending or doctrines has much to do with pulling our own "weight." After all the strategic situation is clearly in our favour as we have no neighbours besides the US to defend against and the only country with the resources to invade is China who don't seem very interested in the prospect. Terrorism is really a police/intelligence matter and not a military matter and we have a bigger problem with Sihk's fighting over chairs in temples than the elusive Al-Quada. We will never be the military equal of the US. It costs a billion dollars just to operate a supercarrier for a year and our entire military budget is something on the order of 10.5-11 billion dollars. We don't have the resources to spend that money even if we wanted too. This sounds like Argus's argument in Canadian Nationalism that all nationalism is biogeted anti-American zealotry. I'm not advocating burning down the white house again or cutting relations or anything of the sort. When the United States makes intelligent foriegn policy choices that are in our interests we should get behind/beside them with all due speed,(Kerry is making noises about going multi-lateral again). But when there interests are not compatible with ours than we should not join in just to try and stop them from pursuing illegal trade practices against us. When they do pursue such practises we should stand up for our logger and rancher neighbour's rights and livelhoods to the full extent possible and not just kneel down and blame ourselves for not joining the latest US foriegn policy adventure. Pay our own way. Sure we pay our UN dues, and foriegn aid and help out here or there where required. ICBMs and 500 million dollar airframes do not a responsible country make. We keep our treaty obligations and don't try to create international bodies of justice that apply to the rest of the world but not us. Sometimes paying your own way means more than writing big checks to Lockheed-Martin and GE.

I see your point. But..... At the end of the day I guess you have to ask yourself what our moral support is worth? I mean Iraq is not widely seen as moral by anyone (as evidenced by your own roster of the "willing.") Maybe sometimes you have to stand for what is right when life and death, world security and the international order are at stake. I don't for one second think you should ever do or not do anything for fear of terrorism. But consider this. If we had no legitimate national interest in Iraq, we went in, flattened some guys house and killed his family as "collateral damage" and he came back and blew up half of Toronto.... would you still think that it was worth it? Also: I had been wondering over the past year and half exactly why Australia is suddenly so gung ho to support the US in the middle east etc. when one wouldn't think that it had much of an interest in any of it. Turn out that Australia is currently negotiating a free trade deal with the US. Coincidence? Not in this life time. I guess that proves your point to an extent but I still don't think it is the ideal to which we ought to strive. Nor do I think we ought to encourage the US in it's belief that it can use economic blackmail to get support for it's military policy. If it's military policy can't get support on it's own merits maybe it ought to rethink it? Tredeau got along with Carter and Chretien with Clinton (very well actually in their case). Iraq will be a bigger ticket issue, (Bush ought to lose over the 450 billion deficiet or September 11 and his handling of, not just Iraq). But that's not really the question that concerns us. Bush will not lose the election because of Canada's lack of support. The masses will not rise up and join in popular uprising against US military policy to be more like Canada and follow our shining example. (Ok now I am being flipant, sorry). If you asked people to list their 1000 biggest issues cattle would likely be 700 something and I doubt Canada's lack of support would make the list. If it did it would be lower than cattle, especially in ranching districts where Mad cow is actually a issue. Or we can do neither and pursue our own foriegn policy while being respectful of the American's right to pursue theirs and possibly make the world a better place. We are not in Rome, just beside it and trading with it. And we would do well to treat the relationship as a customer/client one and not master/slave. If the US didn't need our goods they wouldn't buy them. "i think a friend does not mean you kneel in front of him" Gilles Duceepe Wise words.

Looks like you (very slightly) got me there. He lost 6% of the popular vote too. Happens sometimes to anyone who stays in politics long enough. Maybe Cons didn't want to split the vote so they voted Alliance even if they prefered the PCs. Maybe a hundred million other things. Nonetheless the argument is whether or not Clark destroyed the PC party. Charest may have gotten 20 seats in 1997 but that's really a pathetic number for a national party of the stature and history of the PC party (plus I think almost every one of the seats was in Eastern Canada). Where'd the votes go? The Bloc in Quebec and Reform out West. Again both parties were created out of disatisfaction with Mulroney and only Mulroney. Unless Mr. Clark's excellent work in External affairs was what peed em off? Consider also that even after Mr. Clark's "disappointing" loss in 1979 votes still came the PCs way in 84 while after Mr. Mulroney was done with the party, some , would consider 20 seats significant progress in the upward direction.

Meh, who needs sleep. Gerrymander is a fairly common term in poli sci circles (I'm told). Helps if you spell it right though. political dictionary

We could send the white house 'tribute' like they did in ancient times too (how about a billion dollars) and they would see us in a more favourable light. It doesn't follow that we ought to do that because then they might let in more Canadian beef. Furthermore, we've had problems with lumber and grains with them for a long time before the Iraq war. These were not solved satisfatorially even before we introduces the 'irritant' of not supporting them in Iraq. I don't mean to be flipant, but clearly the rancher lobby group is more important. After all the rancher's vote in elections for said government and more importantly influence their neighbours around them on how to vote. They also contribute to campaigns. Canada was one of very many counrties who didn't support the war and not being a "major" power I doubt too many people in Washington even notice or remember. Plus you have to consider that the real power here is with the senators/representatives and some of them have a lot riding on keeping ranchers happy in their district. This is a good point but there must be a balance. I mean if we bend over every time the Americans want something that's not in our interests they will come to expect it.

I think that the real issue here is that you are being asked to accept these lifestyles for other people but not for yourself. And you still have the right to convince people of the pros or cons of any given lifestyle you just can't use the law to force people not to conduct themselves in certain ways. The net effect hopefully is that there is not as much of an imposition on you as the imposition that is removed from the minority in question. As for the rest, I think that a lot of people are frustrated with judicial activism. There is a big change from the days when courts were more respectable of the elected reps intention with making the laws. But then consider that the politicians have not been particularily good at protecting minority rights and judges have been. Democracy's flaw is that it allows 51% to impose it's will on the other 49% no matter the morality of the 51%'s position. So where to draw the line? Electing judges is counter productive since that would just effectively make them politicians who interpret the law. This would solve nothing.

Truthfully I don't remember but I would assume it is 1. That still proves nothing. I mean the border closure was fue to the case of BSE and it staying closed could have more to due with the American beef lobby than geopolitical considerations of the white house. Indeed I have. In the end that it all that it comes down to, but I hope we are very far from the end. However we have civilization and that means that people (and countries) solve their differences through political, legal and judicial means not through violence. Surely you are not suggesting that the US will or ought to invade us because we did not send token forces to help invade Iraq?

Alberta should consider itself very lucky that resource revenues are so decentralized in Canada. In most countries they would go to the federal government for the use of all citizens of the country no matter their proximity to the oil in question or wheter or not an imaginary line divides them from it. Since Alberta has done nothing to earn it's windfall of oil revenues it should be cautious in being quite so possive of them and unwilling to share a percentage here or there. Ontario has done well by the west. Shipping raw materials in and finished products out making the profit in the middle. It can also afford to share. As to your connection between transfer payments and patronism in rural Quebec I am trying to find the correctly termed logical fallacy but have had no success (besides possibly red herring). So I'll make up my own, your connection between the two is irrelevant since it is no more relevant than whether or not too much money is spent on job training or welfare or government buildings (all of which have astronomically higher budgets). How the money spent is not related to the correctness of wealth redistribution by the federal government.

Where I come from Stoker one does not consider it a favour to ask a neighbour to act fairly with them even if they don't agree on all things. It is simply the proper way to conduct yourself. Nor is it considered a "favour" to act within both the letter and the spirit of the law. It is simply expected that all parties will act within the laws they agreed too even if they have different beliefs. NAFTA ruling against US on lumber, these tribunals constantly find against the US but they keep imposing tarrifs etc. If one respects oneself than one stands up for one's rights when one is treated unfairly and does not simply change their beliefs to match the offending party's beliefs or balme themselves for not being accomadating enough.