Gabriel

Like yourself, I reject these labels in reference to myself. I am far too complex and have differing opinions on various issues. My political, social, and economic leanings cannot be described by a subjective label such as 'left' or 'right'. Furthermore, I do not form my opinions and positions on issues based on how I think a subscriber of a particular ideology should. In other words, I don't view myself as a conservative when approaching an issue I am unfamiliar with, and then approach the issue in a way I think a conservative should in the interests of ideological consistency. With respect to context, of course it depends on the discussion. If unclear, you can always ask for clarification from whoever it is you're speaking with. Sometimes terms such as 'left' and 'right' and 'liberal' and 'conservative' are domestic, sometimes international, and can often mean different things to different people. It should be noted that just because these terms can sometimes have high degrees of subjectivity attached to them, depending on who you're dealing with, DOESN'T mean that they aren't without their utility. Many things in life are subjective and context-based, politics and relatd fields aren't any different. I do not hesitate to utilize these terms to describe others, however, because it is sometimes very clear that certain people CAN be reasonably boxed into a certain label. Take eyeball (a participant in these forums), for instance. Every single post of his fits the stereotype of a typical leftist (in an international AND domestic context) - one who romanticizes groups that he feels are oppressed, who demonizes the groups that he feels are the oppressors and privileged, and rejects the concepts of personal and group responsibility. I've not read one of his posts that run contrary to this unoriginal and amateur worldview. In his eyes, when some underprivileged or oppressed person or group does something wrong, it's always the fault of the elites. This is classical example of leftist extremism. It's almost comical. I will also sometimes use terms such as this to describe lines of argumentation that fall under the realm of the absurd. So be careful not to confuse a label being attached to a position with a label being attached to an individual. Some people are easy to label, though. Lastly, if you haven't already done so, it's fun to learn about the origins of various ideologies. Not so much in the pop-culture sense, but in the classical/academic sense. From a very broad level, what is conservatism? What is liberalism? What is nationalism, communism, socialism, feminism, etc? The academic understandings of these terms often greatly differ from their usage in mass media.

It is up to us to deliver on these ideals. Think of what you just said and how stupid it is: "force" freedom? Are you really suggesting that these values are relative and not to be "imposed" on anyone? How do you "impose" freedom? How do you "force" liberty? It's liberation. Of course it can't be done anywhere and everywhere at the same time - no doubt you will ask why we aren't making efforts to do the same in many other godforsaken parts of the world. It is especially our business when the complete lack of such ideals in a country like Afghanistan, combined with a sick and twisted anti-Western fundamentalist Islamic ideology, breeds terrorism and results in 9/11. Clearly we cannot afford to have Afghanistan continue on as a rogue nation housing terrorist organizations that threaten us. You are also being dishonest by suggesting that I referred to Afghan civilians as subhuman. I specifically described the Taliban and other terrorist groups as sub-human and I will not apologize for it. I also think child-molesters and rapists are sub-human, there are many types of people out there who don't deserve the air they breathe. They definitely are not worth a damn thing. Of course you'd prefer to misrepresent what I said by ignoring the clear distinction I made between the Taliban (and other terrorist groups) and non-Taliban/non-terrorist Afghan civilians. Of course the line isn't black and white, as I imagine a significant portion of the Afghan population subscribes to barbarism and savagery, but the distinction still needs to be made. We're going in circles here with respect to the collateral damage issue. I never think civilians should be killed just for the hell of it. What I am disturbed by is the extreme care we extend towards this issue, at great risk to our soldiers and mission objectives. Soldiers and killed and injured all the time because of our rules of engagement and methods of operation. Our soldiers literally are dying for Afghan civilians. You've completely ignored my point on this issue and not even addressed the real-life examples I listed where we out forces in extreme danger (unnecessarily) in order to reduce the likelihood of collateral damage. Only a fool would have his or her sensibilities offended when terrorist groups like the Taliban are denigrated by being accurately described as human filth. Good idea. What's the point in discussing these issues with someone bent on mischaracterizing what I've said? You blatantly lie about my statements. Or, possibly, you simply cannot understand what I'm saying.

I've explained myself quite thoroughly in this thread. If you are comfortable with the degree of extra risk that Canadian forces and our allies undertake every minute of every day in order to reduce the likelihood of collateral damage, then good for you. I am deeply disturbed by just how far we go to reduce collateral damage, which very often compromises our military objectives in order to satisfy the strong mercy we feel for those who just might not be guilty enough to deserve being hurt or killed. It bothers me that we send soldiers in to check houses, one by one, putting themselves at extreme risk in order to reduce the likelihood of harming civilians rather than simply destroying the entire area that is known to be an operational point for the enemy. It angers me when Canadian soldiers or our allies are hurt or killed because they didn't shoot an unknown person who approached them because they didn't know for certain that he was a suicide bomber - just one of countless situations where our mercy for the enemy and benefit of the doubt being extended to an unknown results in casualty. I value the lives of our Canadian forces and our allies more than the lives of Afghan civilians, and I won't apologize for that. Lastly - freedom, democracy, the right to private property, equality, opportunity, and all other strong Western values aren't buzz words to me. They may mean little or nothing to you, but they mean a lot to me. These words are not simply rhetoric. I will never be shy or embarrassed to be ideological on these values. There is no shame in standing up strongly for these values.

I have a soft spot for Russia in some ways, all of my family are Russian immigrants. There are some good and reputable educational and research institutions in Russia (my father was fortunate enough to obtain a degree from a Russian university prior to his immigration to Canada, and was recognized as having an education equivalent to a Canadian's Master's degree in engineering), and have been for many decades. But still, at the end of the day, the USA is a research and education behemoth. Nobody even comes close. I'm only half-kidding when I say this, but Russia suffered a major brain-drain when much of its Jewish population fled persecution and ended up in the West (mostly the USA, of course). Russia's never recovered from that major loss of talent. :-)

Shwa and chater.rights - How do you two feel about the idea of an all-black school (or school board, or series of schools, or whatever)? Did you two support that idea when it was making headlines?

I'm hardly a military expert, although I had a casual interest when I was much younger in military technology, but I gotta just call it like I see it - wyly, you are ridiculous to suggest that there is any superiority held by Russia in any engineering or technological field over the USA. The USA isn't just a little ahead in every single element of the knowledge economy, it ECLIPSES the rest of the world. Whether it's military technology, medical research, or anything else - for you to even suggest that the USA is 'playing catch up' is absurd. Why do you say so many silly things so often? It's baffling.

One more obvious observation of mine that I'd like to share - I found the difference in between the opposition defense critics' tone in question period and during the questioning of the military officials striking. Their behaviour during question was typical - raucous, fake outrage, outright lies, disrespectful, etc... and then when questioning the military officials they suddenly were able to appear as if they were human beings. Clearly the leftist opposition needs to be careful not to appear TOO anti-military. Clearly they are politically savvy enough to recognize at least that much.

Michael Hardner and GostHacked - You're both right in correcting Shady when he alleges that these new recommendations (which were altered within days after wholesale rejection from all relevant medical agencies and organizations) will lead to denial of healthcare services to women. Where you're both wrong (or just uninformed) is where you both suggest that anybody will be implementing these new guidelines (again, guidelines that were altered days after their release due to their stupidity) in any way, shape, or form. This story is now dead. Cheers.

To be clear, the task force doesn't represent the official position of the government. It simply made recommendations - relevant agencies, governmental or non-governmental, still have discretion with respect to whether or not they want to accept or endorse the new recommendations. As we've already seen, though, every relevant agency immediately rejected the task force's new recommendations. The task force then quickly altered its position. If it was official government advice or policy it'd have been endorsed by some agency like HHS. It hasn't been. EDIT - Shady, I think the Obama plan for health care is a disaster. I think you're on the right side of this issue. I reject, however, your assertion that this story is representative of emerging death panels, or evidence of some sort of secret socialist agenda planning to save costs by 'pulling the plug on grandma'. Obama's plan is just plain stupid, but we don't need to attack it with Palin-esque argumentation, i.e. the 'death panel' thing. Let's be serious. There are many reasoned and accurate arguments AGAINST the Obama plan. Palin's arguments and rhetoric aren't needed (or valid).

I agree. Seems awful quiet in here from some of the critics. I was lucky enough to catch most of this afternoon's testimony. Three level-headed high-ranking military folks setting the record straight. Did anyone else in here laugh when the Liberal defense critic Ujjal Dosanjh made a point to mention that since he didn't have 'the documentation' that he was ill-equipped to ask questions? What a joke. The Bloc Quebecois defense critic Claude Bachand also made a similar statement after the testimony was completed to the press - suggesting that he was unarmed and couldn't ask the right questions without 'the documents' he required prior to the questioning. As if he doesn't have enough of a brain to conceive of some questions to ask based on Colvin's detailed allegations. What a silly country we live in sometimes - where a party that openly espouses its desire to destroy the federation is given political legitimacy.... but that's of course a tangent we don't need to go down. My prediction - the whole debacle will damage the leftist parties of Canada. If they're trying to win independent voters (which is clearly their sole objective, regardless of the cost), they're failing miserably. Fake controversy after fake controversy won't build support among Canadian independents. Let me just say that Keepitsimple and capricorn are two of my favourite posters in here.

Riverwind - I've also avoided this thread due to its absurdity. Thankfully I'm not alone! I'm just not sure I have the energy or willpower to deal with whowhere's craziness. Maybe I'll jump into this thread tomorrow or the next day. If I can garner the patience to deal with whowhere, I may engage. Aren't there any economists in here who can address the major fallacies in this thread? Perhaps they're avoiding the absurdity, as well.

Once again, instead of directly addressing the issue with your own opinion, you respond with, "why doesn't Harper say exactly what you're saying?" We're not here to be spokespersons for Harper or the Conservatives. I speak for myself and myself alone (generally speaking). Toad Brother speaks for himself and himself alone (generally speaking). What the hell does Harper have to do with our little history review? Why are you such a compulsive deflector? You try so hard to derail every single thread. Did you think nobody would notice or not call you out on it? We'll speak for ourselves, and you can speak for yourself. Nobody gives a shit about Harper with respect to this history review.

Agreed. I also think the degree of Western involvement with dictators is highly exaggerated. It often seems like these critics seem to blame the entirety of contemporary problems on a perceived American imperialism. It's like the Spiderman comic, "with great power comes great responsibility". EDIT - Look at Hungary and Poland TODAY and you'll say the same thing! Thank GOD we didn't end up like them!

Clearly it's connected to the same naivety that led him to openly state that he'd meet with dictators without precondition. Still, it wasn't TOO bad. Apparently there were some decent questions, but the students knew they couldn't ask hard questions that might reflect poorly on the Chinese government. Chinese folks learn early to be careful with such matters. It was pretty lame that Obama permitted the entire thing to be blacked out on Chinese television. Perhaps he should have insisted that it be broadcast to all of China. Ah well, I'm hoping Obama will realize soon enough that the world is full of evil and that his job is to carry the light.

When did I ever say "Western-style democracy"? I am well aware that democracy has many manifestations. It is a universal value, at the broad level. Whether or not you are aware of it, most people inherently want access to their political institutions. This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. Perhaps you'd prefer an Ipsos-Reid or Gallup poll to believe this! Why does freedom and democracy have to come from within? These are universal values, it doesn't matter how they are delivered. If someone helps you achieve emancipation from liberty, is this wrong because you didn't do it alone? Liberation is liberation. Following your line of reasoning, the Allies shouldn't have involved themselves in WWII. Are you opposed to the military and political objectives that we are working towards in Afghanistan? Are you opposed to the destruction of the Taliban and the installation of democratic institutions? Why are you playing ridiculous what-if games with history? How the hell would Mexico have delivered independence to the USA from the British Empire? What the hell are you talking about? It's pure nonsense. How can I address this "point" of yours? You have no point, it isn't even worth addressing. How can you speculate towards something that never could have happened, let alone ever did happen? Pure nonsense. I will no longer indulge your irrelevant perceptions of colonial history. Colonialism has absolutely NOTHING to do with the OP of this thread. Have fun talking to yourself. Again, completely irrelevant. Feel free to bring up the moon landing. Colonialism has nothing to do with the conflict in Afghanistan, Iraq, or I/P.

I think we're all on the same page with respect to this story. There's something very strange about an officer choosing to utilize a taser rather than a more "traditional" restraint considering the party was a ten-year-old girl. How could a taser possible be considered a safer approach to restraining the child through more conventional methods? What kind of police officer is such a wimp as to be unable to manage the girl? I mean, even if she was biting him (which she wasn't), how can you NOT handle a little girl? Stranger even is that the mother of the child seemed to encourage the use of a taser! Very strange story. The cop was treating the girl as if she was some sort of mujahadeen... as if even getting close to the girl entailed high risk to his safety.

How should Obama have conducted himself differently? I think Obama is very weak on foreign policy, but I also think he'll come to his senses shortly and realize that his promises of dialogue will yield nothing productive. Eventually Obama's approach will become more influenced realpolitik-esque. At least we can hope so. I'm not certain that speaking out against China's human rights abuses would have been productive. After all, isn't China moving towards more freedom over time? They're introducing more political freedoms, private property, etc, over time. Perhaps Obama feels that China is advancing itself with respect to freedom and opportunity at an acceptable pace.

Finally, a leftist will admit that the values are universal and not relative. If they are universal, how can we stand by and allow them all to happen without intervention? ESPECIALLY when they threaten us? Are you implying that many of the Afghan people do not want liberation from tribal and terrorist rule? Do you really believe that we are imposing values that they wholeheartedly reject? I have no idea why you're mentioning anything regarding colonialism, a wholly irrelevant subject. Btw, most colonial forces of years passed that I learned about didn't hide their intentions under any veil of liberty or freedom. They were very open about their intentions. Apparently you're just making things up on the fly. I'm unsure why you're pretending to know what a colonial PR message sounded like way back when. Still, colonialism is completely irrelevant to this issue. GostHacked - I see democracy as a universal value. Clearly it isn't universally implemented, but it should be. Everyone should have a say in their government and have strong access to the political process. What's your point about the violent origins of freedom in Canada and the USA?

What the hell are you talking about? How would a negotiation (or ultimatum) regarding the American debt owned by China turn America into a nation requiring debt relief? What does 'debt relief' even mean? I wasn't being entirely serious, anyways. But it was a hilarious suggestion from Michael Savage - who is an American treasure.

So are you actually going to directly address anything I said, or...? Do you dispute that our values of freedom and democracy are universal? Clearly you seem to be of the opinion that these values are contextual or relative. Address my point, and stop embarrassing yourself and dumbing down this thread with stupid implications that our military operations in Afghanistan are colonial or rooted in resource exploitation. The situations are completely different. Canada and America gained independence and freedom our own ways at our own times. How you can draw any parallels between the evolution of our political and social freedoms and the military and political objectives in Afghanistan is beyond me. Your arguments are of a grade-7 calibre. "What if they did it to us?" Are you serious? Is that the best you can come up with? Why don't you address my points - that your assertion that we are "imposing" freedom on Afghanistan is a stupid way to describe our endeavour. You don't "impose" freedom. Our way of life isn't anything we need to be hesitant to promote. We don't need to walk around on eggshells when condemning barbarism and savagery when we see it. Of course in your mind, though, human rights and freedoms are relative. It's ok if they throw acid into the faces of young girls trying to get a basic education. What business is it of ours to interfere? Who are we to say that such behaviour is sickening? How arrogant we are to think our way of life is superior. How arrogant we are to suggest that our core values are universal. Try to address my posts directly rather than swerving into nonsensical tangents.

Look, you're clearly out of your element on this discussion. He was CLEARLY talking about the pogroms that occurred in the British Mandate of Palestine pre-Israel. You don't even know the relevant history of this issue at hand, yet you jump into these conversations as if you do. Here are a few lessons that you can take away from this thread: The population that is currently referred to as Palestinians DO NOT have roots in the land dating back to "prehistoric" times. They are very mixed and diverse, genetically (definitely not culturally or religiously). Look around at images and videos of them, you don't need a science background to know that they aren't some sort of untouched group of people who have been dwelling the land until the arrival of the evil Zionists. The historical claim to land on indigenous grounds is always a losing argument for Palestinians, so don't argue it. Jews and non-Jews did not live completely harmoniously until the development of Israel. Of course there were touching stories (and there still are many touching stories) of friendship and cooperation between Jews and non-Jews in pre-Israel Palestine and contemporary Israel. There were still very disturbing episodes of anti-semitic violence, though. Clearly you are unaware of them. Stop perpetuating the lie that all was well in the land of milk and honey until evil Zionism ruined everything. I think there were a couple of other critical errors you made in this thread, but that's enough of a lesson for you for now. You're not equipped to wade into this debate, I'm afraid.

Oleg Bach - Why do all of your posts on foreign policy always boil down to Alex Jones-esque conspiracy theories about some New World Order and the corporate elite and the military industrial complex and Israeli/Zionist secret evil agendas? You are in another dimension. Ridiculous.

Yet here we are, decades later, and the USSR has dissolved and we've seen strengthening trends of democracy and economic liberalization occurring throughout Eastern Europe. Over time, their standards of living are growing. Not to shabby considering they were all bankrupt in the 90s. Describing it as an "abysmal failure" is inaccurate considering the situation and circumstances we see today. I'm sure this is correct. It's more of a cohesive government than has ever been seen in Afghanistan's recent history. Progress is being made. You know we can't see great changes happen overnight. It's a gradual and arduous procedure to remake the country. I agree, there is no doubt that the success of our operations in Afghanistan hinges on the political will of all stakeholders involved, primarily Canada, America, the UK, and Australia. Looks like you're elaborating on your earlier point - the necessity of the political will of the coalition in order for success to be achieved in Afghanistan.

You're taking away any element of context. On a case by case basis, military operations must be evaluated by comparing the potential collateral damage to persons and property against the potential benefit of securing a military objective. There is no doubt that civilian deaths CAN be justified in the theatre of war. Are you disputing this? Are you suggesting that there are no circumstances under which collateral damage can be justified? A simple yes or no answer, please. I am not advocating wholesale destruction of all civilians. I have specifically said otherwise. I have said, however, that we appear to be MUCH too hesitant to engage in activities that are likely to cause collateral damage, and as result of this resistance, we are compromising the security of our military and of our broader objectives. For you to suggest that I am no different than our enemies illustrates you absurdity. You just put me in the same bin as the filth that we are fighting - as if I am anti-democracy, anti-freedom, anti-woman, anti-education, pro-fundamentalist Islam, pro-suicide bombings, etc, etc, etc. If you cannot discern the difference between my positions and the positions of our enemies, why are you even in this thread? I'd reply if I thought you were worth the time.

I was listening to the Michael Savage show last week and he said something funny - that he would have been impressed had Obama went to China and told the Chinese: we'll pay you pennies on the dollar for all we owe you. Take it or leave it! Obama would've been THE MAN if he did that. Ah well, we can all dream.