Why isn't Canada helping to promote democracy?

[GostHacked]

Yes, countries don't have to support Hamas because they advocate terrorism. Terrorism is not an option ever.

Countried do not have to support Israel either, for it's state of hypocracy. Suicide bombs. mortar attacks, IDF gates on their territories gunship attacks, leveling of Palestine homes.. back forth , back forth .. territories. These people no longer have a country to live in. They reside in controled tracks of allocated land to the Palestinians. And you want them to say ' yah screw it, the jewish invasion won, we give up'.

If the palestinians agree that Israel has a right to exist, then Israel should recognize the Palestinians right to exist as a nation state. I don't see Israel promoting that kind of tolerance from within. And they are definately not promoting it through their actions. (aka building walls, land grabbing ect)

But I can't have it both ways I guess.

It's funny. Your one of those people obviously that say the war in Iraq is illegal according to international law. But then you disregard the law concerning terrorism and the state of the Israel. Do we follow the law or not? You can't selectively be ok with some of it.

Seems like you are selectivly ok with it. Why did the UN pick that particular place to establish Israel? What would that accomplish?

International Law approved the state of Israel

International Law did NOT approve of the Iraq war. No such measure was passed (regardless of the number of times they passed resolutions against Iraq.)

[geoffrey]

Countried do not have to support Israel either, for it's state of hypocracy. Suicide bombs. mortar attacks, IDF gates on their territories gunship attacks, leveling of Palestine homes.. back forth , back forth .. territories. These people no longer have a country to live in. They reside in controled tracks of allocated land to the Palestinians. And you want them to say ' yah screw it, the jewish invasion won, we give up'.

If the palestinians agree that Israel has a right to exist, then Israel should recognize the Palestinians right to exist as a nation state. I don't see Israel promoting that kind of tolerance from within. And they are definately not promoting it through their actions. (aka building walls, land grabbing ect)

But I can't have it both ways I guess.

I don't support either country. Both act childish and irresponsibly.

Seems like you are selectivly ok with it. Why did the UN pick that particular place to establish Israel? What would that accomplish?

International Law approved the state of Israel

International Law did NOT approve of the Iraq war. No such measure was passed (regardless of the number of times they passed resolutions against Iraq.)

I don't really believe in international law personally. I think the world is better off without Saddam. I think the world can accomidate Israel and Palestine fairly. And I think both can be done without the UN.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog ... 1/ I would but you sound like the type around whom it would be unsafe to drop the soap ...

Oooh scathing wit. I'll bet you have them rolling in the aisles in the lunchroom after gym class

As I wrote in the previous post, it was an interview with Canada's foremost military historian Jack Granastein, someone who has obviously forgotten more about our military history and policy making than you will ever know, it was copied verbatim from a CP release and what is your point about it or do you prefer just to keep your ignorance covered up by ignoring it?

uh.. reprinting articles without attribution is a violation of copyright. Post a snippet and a link.

you can't even spell "irrelevant" let alone appreciate that even if something works out to one's advantage by fluke it is always "relevant" and telling to examine the reasons for policy choices and only a moron would claim that reason is irrelevant ...

Gven the number of spelling errors in your own posts, as well as your 6th Grade grammar and punctuation skills, that's probably not a road you'll want to go down.

this is a matter of opinion and obviously we profoundly disagree about it ... you take the view that being the military welfare bum of the entire NATO alliance, forcing the US and other allies to shoulder what should be our fair share of the cost of defending our sovereignty and our western liberal values and those nations who share said values is AN HONOURABLE THING while I believe that we must bear our share of the burden of defending and promoting western liberal values ... I guess for you lefties, anything to do with "welfare" and sponging off others is a good thing, eh? Not for me.

Classic strawman argument. Come back when you have a clue, sunshine.

[geoffrey]

Come back when you have a clue, sunshine.

I'm picturing you as a Clint Eastwood western movie look-alike after that comment.

[Black Dog]

Come back when you have a clue, sunshine.

I'm picturing you as a Clint Eastwood western movie look-alike after that comment.

Well, I gets ornery when some greenhorn tries to tell me what I'm thinkin' in my own head. Powerful ornery.

[Wilber]

Palestine recently had a democratic election and since we don't like who won, we've asked the Palestinian Authority to return $50 million in aid. It's not about democracy. It's about making Iraq a "U.S.-friendly" nation.

Or not supporting a terrorist group that's sole mission is the destruction of Israel.

Sole desctuction of Israel. You know I am getting really tired of people using this excuse. Israel was not even a county before WWII. If anything the Islraelis should be kicked out of the reigion, It is clear they are not welcomed there. Palestine was a large country, then the virus was put in place and now it consumes most of the former country. But I would be called anit-semetic if I had actually said those things.

Stop it, just stop it. Hammas was democraticly (if you will humour me) elected government. The people chose it. And now countires will just have to DEAL with it.

Now onto Iraq and their civil war...Sectrian violence was predicted really, and it is getting worse. Try this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4765456.stm where it said that the Bagdahd morgues are getting 780 to 1100 bodies a month for the last year. Just as an average, that is about 90,000 people who according to those officials, most have died due to some torture. Wake up people. It already started. Gangs running the streets in Iraq, just as they do in the burbs of L.A. (ok bad example) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4765854.stm To me there is basicly no security, and the only one who can defend you is you and your gun.

They were put there by the League of Nations and the UN. Kicked out to where? One reason Israel was formed is because they had nowhere. Many of them were survivors or descendent's of survivors of an attempt to exterminate them. Israel will never allow itself to deal from anything less than a position of strength because they know what is possible when you are at the mercy of those who don't like you.

The Palestinians have a right to elect who they please but Hamas has never renounced its position on the destruction of Israel. Would you want your government to negotiate with any group that had as one of its stated goals, the destruction of your country? It's not all one sided, there are probably as many factions among Israelis that their government has to deal with, as there are Palestinian. They have their radicals as well. Not so long ago they had a Prime Minister assassinated by one.

Palestine probably was a bad choice for a Jewish state but what were the alternatives? I used to work with a guy who was a career RAF pilot. He was based in Cypress flying fighters and flew during the Suez crisis in 1956. He said he thought Cypress would be a perfect place for a Jewish state. An island, easy to defend, no need to expand your borders to improve your security, plus the Greeks and Turks who live there don't like each other anyway. It was tongue in cheek but when you think about it, it does make a certain amount of sense.

[Teddy Ballgame]

- BLACKDOG ... Wow, that's really neat! You sure came up with some creative rhetoric and specious reasoning in your faux rebuttal to my reasoned, factual and relevant explanation of why Petit Jean kept us out of Iraq and also in rebuttal to the Canada's leading military historian Jack Granastein's corroborating comments on the matter.

- Well, actually, you didn't offer up anything specific and factual and relevant to the argument that i advanced. Nothing whatsoever but BS and birdseed. I guess this explains why you have almost 4.000 posts on this board. You just like to see yourself in print and this is as close as you'll ever get to doing so.

- I already know what it is like to see myself in print and to get paid quite a lot in the bargain so I don't need to and won't be posting 4,000 or more posts here. I'll only respond when I have something to say in relationship to something worth a response. Maybe you should also consider this before you respond to other people's posts.

[BubberMiley]

- I already know what it is like to see myself in print and to get paid quite a lot in the bargain

Ooooh!

[sharkman]

- BLACKDOG ...

- I already know what it is like to see myself in print and to get paid quite a lot in the bargain so I don't need to and won't be posting 4,000 or more posts here. I'll only respond when I have something to say in relationship to something worth a response. Maybe you should also consider this before you respond to other people's posts.

Hey, uh, Teddy. It sounds like you've come down with a NASTY case of post envy, although I'm not sure if it's related to penis envy. You get paid a lot to see yourself in print, eh? Sound a little insecure about it though. Perhaps you shouldn't take yourself so seriously.

[Martial Shadow]

Wow, I need goloshes up to my neck to navigate this pile.

[Black Dog]

- BLACKDOG ... Wow, that's really neat! You sure came up with some creative rhetoric and specious reasoning in your faux rebuttal to my reasoned, factual and relevant explanation of why Petit Jean kept us out of Iraq and also in rebuttal to the Canada's leading military historian Jack Granastein's corroborating comments on the matter.

Whether Chretien kept us out for political gain is, to me, irrelevant. It was the right decision. And while you may be easily awed by Granatstein's qualifications, they do not make him correct: read on.

- Well, actually, you didn't offer up anything specific and factual and relevant to the argument that i advanced. Nothing whatsoever but BS and birdseed. I guess this explains why you have almost 4.000 posts on this board. You just like to see yourself in print and this is as close as you'll ever get to doing so.

How about this: Granatstein's fundamental premise (that rampant anti-American sentiment in Canada drives our foreign policy) is wrong. There’s no significant anti-American sentiment in Canada.

There does not appear to be a rise in anti-American feelings among Canadians, despite Canada’s difference of opinion with the US over the war in Iraq.

In the period when the threat of war loomed and as it actually broke out, only 26% of Canadians said that Canada should have more distant ties with the US. This is higher than the 13% who felt this way immediately after September 11th, 2001, but lower than the 35% who held this view in the summer of 2002, when the idea of a US attack on Iraq first came to the fore. Currently, a plurality of Canadians (48%) say that ties with the US should remain about the same as now, up 12 points since last summer. One in four Canadians (26%), however, would like to see the two countries have closer ties.

But what about Quebec?

Even in Quebec, where anti-war feeling is strongest, only 29% sought more distant ties from the US, compared with 44% who favoured the status quo, and 27% who

would like closer ties.

The outbreak of war did not affect survey results. Those surveyed before March 16,when US President George W. Bush issued the final ultimatum to Iraq, did not have significantly different views on this question, compared with those surveyed after that date, including during the first week of fighting.

There is also little indication of strong polarization over the issue. Only 7% of Canadians said that ties should be much more distant (as opposed to somewhat more distant). Similarly, only 11% said that they we should have much closer ties (as opposed to somewhat closer).

Oh snap.

- Well, actually, you didn't offer up anything specific and factual and relevant to the argument that i advanced. Nothing whatsoever but BS and birdseed. I guess this explains why you have almost 4.000 posts on this board. You just like to see yourself in print and this is as close as you'll ever get to doing so.

Gosh, not only are you a mind reader (as evidenced by your Amazing Kreskin routine earlier where you helpfully told me what my thoughts on this issue were), you're also all-knowing (you can tell who I am, what I do and whether or not I've ever been published). Is there anything the Almighty Teddy Ballgame can't do (aside from using proper punctuation)?

I already know what it is like to see myself in print and to get paid quite a lot in the bargain so I don't need to and won't be posting 4,000 or more posts here. I'll only respond when I have something to say in relationship to something worth a response. Maybe you should also consider this before you respond to other people's posts.

Bragging about one's paycheque is always a sure sign of a winner. For the record, I find it difficult to believe anyone would pay you to write (scratch that: maybe the Canada Free Press?) or that you could get paid "quite a lot" for it (unless you found an employer who pays by the run-on sentence).

[geoffrey]

Alot of interesting stats BD.

Chretien made the right decision not fighting with the coalition in the inital stages of the war, he acted immature about it, and with quite some indecisiveness. But honestly, we didn't have the resources to do, nor the public support.

I'd like to see us, as well as the rest of the UN there, as a peacekeeping and security force now that the initial invasion is over. If the whole world, with support of some Muslim countries, was there, the 'occupation' would be seen as helpful and not oppresive as it does with only the US there. That'd be a true step towards progress, and a compromise between the US pulling out or remaining their indefiniately.

[Wilber]

Alot of interesting stats BD.

Chretien made the right decision not fighting with the coalition in the inital stages of the war, he acted immature about it, and with quite some indecisiveness. But honestly, we didn't have the resources to do, nor the public support.

I'd like to see us, as well as the rest of the UN there, as a peacekeeping and security force now that the initial invasion is over. If the whole world, with support of some Muslim countries, was there, the 'occupation' would be seen as helpful and not oppresive as it does with only the US there. That'd be a true step towards progress, and a compromise between the US pulling out or remaining their indefiniately.

A nice sentiment and one I could support. But!

For there to be peace keeping there has to be a peace to be kept. So far there is none. Until the waring parties can reach an agreement to turn security over to peace keepers and honour it, the result will be another Yugoslavia. Only the involved parties can bring this about and until that time we should not get involved.