Tawasakm

Ahem. I just noticed my spelling mistake in the title. It should, of course, read as "Pre-emptive". I apologise for not checking that properly.

There are occasions when I have to keep asking to get the detail I am asking for. I would not do that if you would do me the courtesy of providing that information to start with.

Pay attention. I have stated before that I believe Bush should have staid on target with Bin Laden rather then going after Iraq. I have said before that he has things wrong that he needs to answer for. I have said that his policies are creating problems domestically and internationally. I have said that the invasion of Iraq had questionable legality. And so on and so forth. As to Australia - I did not support our involvement at the time because I did not believe Bush. Now that the country is invaded I believe in staying the course until there is some positive resolution. I back myself up when asked to do so. And provide sources for new topics and to back up statements. I have said before that I DO NOT BELIEVE you read my posts in detail. I am still of that opinion.

Australia was invited to attend the APEAC summit (held in Laos this time) for the first time. Pm John Howard has come under some criticism because he won't sign the non-agression pact that all APEAC member signs. He is unwilling to give up his preemptive strike policy. There is an article on it here. There is some question now on whether or not Australia will be invited to attend again because of this. So how much does this pre-emptive strike policy effect international relations? Keep in mind, also, that Howard went into the summit wanting a free trade agreement between the 10 APEAC members, Australia and New Zealand. It appears that he is going to get that. It is set to be finalised 2007. Basically he got what he wanted without giving up his policy. Otoh he may not be invited back again. How much does this policy hurt his international relations? How much is any nation which adopts such a policy being affected?

caesar, the point I was trying to make is that you need to accord yourselves respect rather then looking toward others (who may not really understand where you are coming from) to set a bench mark. Thanks for the link. Haven't yet read it but I will.

New York Times article OK my wording on the topic title may be a little strong since they said "tantamount to torture". Nevertheless this again raises grave concerns over the treatment of prisoners who are being detained indefinitely. Surely the time has come when the Bush administration needs to tidy up its act, remove the prisoners from their current location and give them due process. Thoughts anyone?

caesar, I hope you take my remarks in context. I'm not belittling Canada's position - I certainly care. I was responding to this remark: I don't know about the rest of the world but you shouldn't necessarily count on it here. I would assume many parts of the world are the same. My point, which I didn't elaborate correctly, is that considering that many in the world may not pay enough attention to Canada to understand where it is coming from, then you shouldn't read too much into the viewpoints or 'respect' of those nations/people. You should accord your own nation respect yourselves. Especially when, it seems, you don't care what other nations think yourself: Given that many in other countries will reflect your attitude you shouldn't be making such a point of:

Iran has struck a diplomatic deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency via negotiations with Britain, Germany and France to suspend its uranium enrichment programs. Diplomatic work apparently a succes for now The deal has implications toward any intentions the US MAY have in regards to moving against Iran. It removes any 'smoking fuse' which they may be following. And has also been negotiated, in part, by their chief ally Britain. So it makes it harder now to talk up Iran's potential threat. However the article also said this: Which, on the face of it, makes this look like a win/win deal for everyone. Taking into account that Iran wants this to be understood as voluntary and non-binding do people think the deal is a positive sign toward stability in the region? Should we trust Iran's committment to suspend its nuclear program and will it help to make possible diplomatic (not military) solutions now and in the future in this region?

I use this forum and Canadian sources to learn about Candian opinions/positions. It very rarely crops up in the media here. I don't know how things are in the rest of the world but, sadly, in Australia Canada's position is not known or considered. Well actually its not completely unknown. I would hope that most people realise Canada is against the war in Iraq for instance.

East Timor was liberated in 1999. They are one of the poorest nations in the world. There are oil fields off their coast (in the Timor Gap) worth perhaps thirty billion in revenues. And Australia is trying to take a disproportionate amount of it. Interview with East Timors foreign minister East Timor NEEDS the royalties Australia not interested in International Court of Justice I thought I might 'expand' the scope of the international forum a little. Anyone got any thoughts on this?

TTS I think I expressed myself clearly as to why it would be necessary to provide some level of monitoring of Islamic religious services. They can be used as a system to provide disonformation possibly leading to violence. At the very least some of these mosques (I know I know - I don't really know how its spelt) are indoctrinating their followers in such a fashion that they are isolating and segregating themselves from the rest of society. Perhaps to the extent of trampling on their womens rights (as they exist in Canada). Now I'm not saying we should stick listening devics in mosques all over Canada and listen to everything. But it might not be amiss is every now and then an official could enter unobtrusively and get a feel for what is going down in each mosque. As I said earlier (and I invite you to address this time if you think I'm blathering nonsense):

How does that stop people feeling? A feeling is still a feeling. BTW I know plenty of psychologists (who believe emotions are explained as chemicals) who are happy, laughing expressive people. You seem to hold this belief that some of the natural parts of these people will be repressed and they will need to 'escape' later. Explain to me why all of the above would be necessary. Why would science kill feeling? Think of all the great scientist documentary makers who all seem so full of vim and vigour. In fact the the abolition of religion may remove an impediment to emotional feeling and expressivity since there is no longer a belief that we are 'sinners' etc, Anyway got to dash for a little bit. More later.

Its not simply a consideration of length of exposure to sun but also the state of the ozone layer between one and the sun - which isn't exactly the same everywhere. Last I heard the largest hole was above Australia. So a person in Australia may be exposed to the sun for a lesser length of time then someone on another continent and still be at greater risk of skin cancer. Wearing sun block is very important in Australia and it has appeared to reduce the incidence of skin cancer.

I hope people don't mind if I return to kimmy's post briefly. You are correct, kimmy, in that there was a considerable amount of tension created between Australia and Indonesia at the time. One interesting aspect of what was occuring was the opinions of the Indonesian people. I remember watching the news on many occasions as Indonesian citizens in Jakarta (and other places I can't recall) were interviewed and asked their opinion. They often responded with anger at Australia's aggression (people were apparently taught that East Timor had always been part of the empire). More then that they often expressed the view that Australia's actions were a prelude to invasion of Indonesia proper. They believed Australia was intending to start biting chunks out of Indonesia. Basically Austalia was behaving as an imperialist power. This information, from memory, was apparently 'delivered from the pulpits'. It was seen as an act of aggression against Islam. Which was, and is, nonsense. The people of East Timor were conquered against their will last century and subjected to a brutal occupation. It is to Australia's shame, in my view, that we did not act to prevent it at the time (its famous now that the government of the time gave Indonesia a green light to invade). I'm thankful that Australia, as a nation, now possesses more of a moral backbone. So, yes, Islamic fundametalists already had problems with Australia. What I think is the interesting aspect here is the issue of disinformation. People often point to Bush's nebulous grasp of truth (and rightfully so) but it is not a problem unique to his administration. It seems to me to be an even greater problem in areas of Islamic fundamentalism and, perhaps (and to a lesser degree), in any area of Islamic influence. Disinformation, distortions, lies to create support exist on that side too and I, for one, believe such tactics are more entrenched, systematic, accepted and unchallenged then they are in the more democracised West. I'm not trying to tarnish all of Islam here but it is my opinion that it is a real problem. So perhaps Maplesyrup is on to something when she wants to know what is happening in Islamic religious services. Although, on the other hand, I wouldn't want to infringe on civil rights. Whether or not services need to be made in English I think there is a valid point that they need to be open and monitored to some extent.

I didn't think I wanted to quite before I read the book. Thats not why I was asking you to read it. Some of the things I'm claiming run contrary to scientific research. Yes, yes I know about stimulants affecting the central nervous system and increasing the effectiveness of certain neuro transmitters - norepinephrine and dopamine. Which may make my point seem bizarre. But I will swear black and blue that this book enabled to quit like it was nothing - no effort and I didn't have to use substitutes, alter my lifestyle or use willpower. I understand that this sounds off - every other time I tried to quit it was a miserable experience with me fighting a powerful addiction. Why does the book work? Good psychology I suppose. Even if you have quit I urge you to read it for the perspective it will give you. I still contend that tobacco does not contain beneficial properties. Although I suppose if someone can keep smoking only occasionally they will get an elevated mood due to the dopamine effect. But what do large doses do? Cause anxiety. What happens to smokers? They smoke more and more. Plus, as I said before, it is not only the consideration of the smoker. They harm others. Passive smoking, smoking while pregnant etc. The massive toll in pain and death later. But I respect your views - they are rooted firmly in current scientific knowlege. I will agree to disagree with you and let this drop. I guess I've been dragging this off topic for which I apologise to everyone else posting on this thread.

Thats the conclusion I came to also Terrible Sweal. Apologies if I've been too incoherent in my last posts to convey that.

I have to say, caesar, thats Perth's public transportation system does sound different. If a bus has to brake very suddenly its the only time I've seen people indanger of falling. They absolutely do not run red lights or ignore pedestrian crossings. Some people don't give up the special consideration seats but most do. We do have some special bus only lanes throughout the city to speed things up (there are bus only lanes running along the major freeway feeding into and out of the city centre) and some bus only signals at some traffic intersections (which, obviously, regulate the bus only lanes). People are expected to give way to buses that are changing lanes (and signal in advance). How much does public transport cost where you live atm? Here I can travel anywhere in Perth all day long using Transperth buses, trains and ferries for $3.20. Sydney is alot more expensive and not integrated like Perths. How do things stand there right now?

Thats a common reaction from people who haven't looked at it from this perspective. Why don't you read the book and then tell me what you think? Its not really that long. If you still disagree with it afterwards at least you'll know what you are disagreeing with. There are more ways of looking at it then seem apparent.

Thanks for the link. Very informative. I can see the rationale behind the policy now. I hadn't considered all of those points. Well I must admit I've never ecountered a problem on public transport buses without belts (which I often have to stand in anyway). Its interesting that long distance coaches seem more prone to including seatbelts (at least here in Australia). Perhaps because of the higher speeds. I'm travelling on one of those coaches around christmas. Might see what I can find out about it.

I'm a former smoker too. I read an interesting book called "The Easy Way to Quit Smoking" by Allen Carr. It enabled me to stop smoking in 10 - 14 days without willpower, denial (like not drinking tea etc) or substitutes. Which I would not have thought possible before reading it. One of the points it hit on is that smoking doesn't actually calm you (as many suppose). Nicotine is a fast acting drug. The withdrawal of nicotine from the system makes you nervous. When you smoke again the nicotine enters your system and the withdrawal symptoms disappear for a short time therefore creating the illusion that it is calming you. The book basically removes every percieved benefit/pleasure of smoking. It is all illusion. Even the difficulty in quitting can be removed by altering your understanding. It really works. Not only has it worked for me but for alot of people I know. The author claims he has achieved a 95% success rate (he runs clinics that use the method - and there are plenty around the world). As to alcohol there are proven benefits to drinking small amounts of it. Why ban it? Even getting drunk every now and then can be beneficial in just letting off steam. Basically I don't see the two as analagous as I view tobacco as being ONLY harmful no matter the circumstances whereas alcohol is harmful if MISUSED. I might just be a lonely crusader on this but I regard the prohibition of tobacco as a number one priority. Maybe the government could hand out free copies of the book I mentioned and hopefully dispel 95% of the backlash in two weeks. There are people, children amongst them, who live with smokers. It can happen visiting people etc. The harmful effects of passive smoking are well documented.

If dissidents/opponents (from any side) are forced (I know you don't really want to force) to leave a country because of their views then the principles of democracy fail. I see freedom of expression and diversity of views as being essential to a democratic nation. You could take the view that this opposition to your views mean you live in a strong democracy and take pride and comfort in that.

I thought it was 30 seconds between posts? Let me test this Nope you are right. I think your suggestion: Makes perfect sense.

I'd personally prioritise the banning of tobacco ahead of trans fats. If for no other reason then the smoker can also harm the people around him/her. You can't suffer from passive fat. Unless someone falls on you...

You know I think that questions like this are alot easier to answer in Australia. Its crystal clear who the majority voted for since voting is compulsory for everyone 18 and over. There seems to be a confused situation in the US about what the majority might really be since certain demographics are under-represented in voting. I personally believe in compulsory voting - it actually helps democracy. Its definitely the voice of the people and nobody (well fewer people) become disenfranchised with the system - they know they are a contributing part of it - their voice and that of every demographic (excluding direct input from under 18's) is being heard. Last election I did not personally encounter any youth apathy concerning the election.

You could call it a freudian slip... Although I guess the underlying belief could not rightly be called subconcious. Ignoring his potential literacy problems (despite everything I am sure he can read) I would want to be there to explain the moral of the story to him a few times to be sure that he got it.