Bob

I see Ignatieff as the Canadian Mitt Romney, in the sense that both politicians seems to have the tools and potential to be strong political forces to be reckoned with, yet are cursed with a destructive Achilles heel - they have no principles and will say whatever they think people want them to say. Anyone else get this impression? Tell me I'm not alone.

Exactly, the simplistic "blame the USA" attitude usually tells us more about the critic than about the USA. That's not to say there aren't legitimate criticisms to be made of the USA with respect to foreign policy, but we all know the stupid rhetoric when we see it - and we're seeing it in this thread. There's a difference between legitimate and thoughtful criticisms of American foreign policy and blaming the ills of the Middle East on America.

It's depressing for me to see how in-the-clouds many Canadians are. Oftentimes I think these Canadian criticisms of Israel are connected to our ambiguously defined identity (we've talked about this before), combined with an element of inferiority complex. I wish more Canadians were more aware and level-headed about these issues and didn't join the pathetic and infantile knee-jerk animosity of America that's common in Europe. This is also connected to a warped affinity that many Canadians hold for Europe, which is entirely founded on false illusions of what Europe is all about. Funny for you, depressing for me.

For the sake of focus, let's just try to stay focused on the Middle East. I'm not very familiar, and not particularly interested, in American involvement in the regions you speak of. I also reject your assertion that democracies are less stable than dictatorships. It's too simplistic, and it depends on context. The most stable countries around are democracies. That isn't to say they're the most stable countries simply by virtue of their democratic systems, though. EDIT - I misread your post. It turns out you're saying something pretty preposterous, and I initially overlooked it. You're actually suggesting that America has always had a clear moral choice to make, without any challenging choices to make between balancing the national interest and broad questions of justice and morality. It's such a ridiculous assertion that I don't want to waste much time replying to it. I will say this, however, you've got quite a bit to learn if you can't recognize that America is often in a difficult position where it must balance imperative national interests with ideological and moral considerations. You think America can make the choice to starve itself of Middle Eastern oil in order to take a principled stand against Arab and/or Muslim dictatorships?

Seriously, though... what do the leftists want? America may be the world's only superpower, but she certainly does not have the power to remake the world in her image. I believe in American exceptionalism, but I don't believe America can export it across the world easily. Do the leftists want America to support revolutionaries it believes are democratic? Maybe they want sanctions and movements to isolate these regimes? What about the cost to America? America has a difficult road to walk on, and it's been difficult for a long time. On the one hand, America must service her people and act in her own best interests. On the other hand, these needs must be balanced with a sense of justice and morality. It's not easy.

And what's America's alternative to dealing with the oppressive regimes as they are? You expect America to leave itself vulnerable to economic shut-down via a bunch of Arabs through OPEC or something else? It must develop relationships with the governments in charge of the countries that have the oil. Beyond oil, there are also strategic military purposes to this region for America, and particularly its allies.

There's self-interest and then there's self-interest. America's interests in the Middle East are extremely crucial. Oil is one of America's economic essentials. Of course this is true for many countries. America hasn't formed its relationship with Egypt for small potatoes. These strategic relationships are not being done in order to give Wal-Mart an edge in the couscous market. Again, you deal with the world as it is, not with the world you want. America cannot simply make the Middle East into a friendly region filled with like-minded liberal democracies. So, America must deal with reality. And as usual, the ideologues will continue spewing their rhetoric of "US-backed regimes", as if America has some other choice.

I'm well aware of that. It's a difficult position for the USA to be in. You seem to be overlooking the humanitarian side of American aid to Egypt. Every dollar of value (whether in cash or in goods/services) is a dollar made free for essentials. Without American aid, military or otherwise, Egyptian quality of life would go down. How much would it go down? Well, apparently American foreign aid to Egypt has been averaging about two billion dollars since 1979, all we need to do now is determine Egypt's average GDP during that time...

Well, since you don't know anything about Israel, the Middle East, or America's connection to either... your concerns are nonsensical. Thanks anyways.

Americans certainly fought tyranny! I never suggested otherwise. What America has been blessed NOT to deal with, however, was an internal tyranny. There's a big difference. I agree with you - the Arabs need to take a look into the mirror and shake off their habit of always blaming America, Jews, and Israel. We have between little and nothing to do with their affairs (minus America's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq with her coalition in recent years, of course).

There's no question that the criticism of America as being responsible for this oppression is absurd. The typical rhetoric of "US-backed oppression" and "propped-up dictatorships" got old a long time ago. The same people would be shouting the same criticisms against America if it completely extricated itself from countries like Egypt. America must deal with the world as it is, not the world it wants. The explanation as to why the Middle East is a messed up and oppressive place is a complicated one, and certainly not as simple as people like eyeball would have us believe - "it's all America's fault!"

Bush_cheney2004, I'll agree with some of the posters in the thread on one criticism towards you - it's unfair to criticize people living under oppression, such as the Egyptians. It's simplistic and inaccurate to suggest that many other countries have taken their destiny into their own hands in similar circumstances. America certainly never had to deal with such tyranny. And without going into details, Israel was also somewhat close to becoming a tyranny in its early days.

There's one country that has a special relationship with Israel, and that's America. No plurals needed. And certainly no need for "we" coming from a Canadian like yourself. The relationship between America and Israel runs deeper than simply through the affinity of one democracy to another. It's hardly as simple as you're making it out to be. We can talk about the special American-Israeli relationship and its components (cultural, strategic, economic) in another thread. That might be good for you, because you don't seem to know anything about it. Additionally, he military aid from America isn't a blank check. Although American administrations have wrestled with Israeli administrations, including the current governments, American aid doesn't come without conditions. It's another complicated issue, and one you also don't seem to know much about. Lastly, you seem to be suggesting that in the unlikely event of meaningful democratic reform in Egypt, that we will now see another state in the Middle East that can be eligible to receive aid under your simplistic "money to democracies in the Middle East" understanding of American foreign aid - as if Egypt hasn't already been receiving massive aid from the USA for many years.

Now we're getting somewhere. Let's go bit deeper, why would a potential regime be hostile to Israel? What do you suspect would be the motivation(s) behind a future rescinding of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of 1979?

Anyone else notice how ridiculous it was of TrueMetis to suggest that psychopathy is treatable because it is (largely) biological? Someone skipped their academic science classes in high school...

I'll save him the trouble, psychopaths cannot be rehabilitated.

What does the psychopathy's biological connection have to do with its treatability? If you read Robert Hare's books, you'd know that not his position. You're just digging your hole even deeper by being so obstinate.

I admit things I don't know and refrain from speaking about such things with certainty. You, on the other hand, regularly dive right into subjects you know little to nothing about. Psychopathy doesn't render someone incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of what they're doing. You're wrong. Again. Lastly, why are you pretending to be familiar with the trial? Wrong again. Regardless of all your nonsense, the fact remains that Bernardo and others like him cannot be rehabilitated, and should never be given even the chance of being released. You, on the other hand, are "perfectly fine" with him having the chance to get out. Sometimes I think you say such stupid things just for the sake of disagreeing with me.

That's exactly it. We should not be afraid to institute new laws to enforce REAL life imprisonment. It is outrageous that a criminal like Bernardo can even be given the chance to be released.

It's not a dodge, at all. Anyone who reads either or both of those two books will understand that psychopaths like Bernardo cannot be rehabilitated or reformed. Don't be so naive to think that parole laws were written in consultation with psychiatrists or psychologists with respect to psychopathy.

You're making things up again and pretending to know things you don't. You're presenting two false (or at least debatable) "facts", and hoping that nobody will call you on it. I'll call your bluff. First, let's address your assertion that Paul Bernardo wasn't considered a psychopath. You're pretending to somehow know this. Did you read diagnostics done on him by psychiatrists or psychologists? You and I both know that you have not. Robert Hare, the author of the two books I listed above and arguably the world's foremost authority on psychopathy (he's also Canadian!), has stated that Bernardo is certainly a psychopath. Many articles I've read about Bernardo, written by professionals and not simple journalists, agree that Bernardo is indeed a psychopath. Paul Bernardo himself, for what it's worth, has tried to make claims that he is a reformed psychopath in attempts towards parole after fifteen years via the "Faint Hope" clause (whatever that is). The second false assertion you're making is that psychopaths aren't sent to prison. Since when? Where is the law against sending psychopaths to prison? Prison is filled with psychopaths. Do you even know what psychopathy is? You're doing what you usually do, which is pretending to know things.

I'm not unfamiliar with the Muslim Brotherhood. I'd wager I know quite a bit more about the group's history, founders and figureheads, and spin-off groups than you. Given my focus on Israel, it was inevitable that I would learn about the Muslim Brotherhood. Where in the world did you get the idea that I don't know about the Muslim Brotherhood? As far as occupation goes, we're talking about Gaza, and Gaza isn't occupied. Try to spin it any way you want, but the nature of this neighborhood requires immense security. Israel wasn't given the geographical blessings that Canada received. The hypocrisy of dre's criticisms of Israeli reception of American military aid remain, despite you pretending they don't exist. I also don't understand why you're denying the fact that the terrorists exploit loopholes. They've brought terrorists into Israel knowledge of our policies. For example, under certain circumstances Israel permits Arabs to enter Israel from Gaza for medical treatment - this has been exploited for terrorism. There are many other examples of the terrorists exploiting all existing systems in order to murder Jews. Why are you trying to deny this?

So what you're saying is - new leadership in Egypt could potentially support Hamas (militarily, politically, monetarily)? Basically, you're suggesting that there is a possibility that via regime change in Egypt, Israel might have to open a new front along what's been a quiet border since 1979?

That's one way of putting it. I strongly disagree, and it'd take way too long to explain why because it's so broad of an idea. As far as I'm concerned, if the Palestinians were seriously motivated to secure independence and self-determination, it would've happened decades ago.

He's got even less personality than Harper! Dion is a train wreck. Enough with the Francophone politicians, already... we've already got way too many Francophones in all levels of government, from the top all the way down to the administrative assistant making $45K/year who gets to come into work at 11 PM every day because she's got a bad back.