MonteZuma

Happenstance? You think the invasion and occupation of a middle eastern nation by a coalition of over 100,000 US and international troops in violation of international law and at the expense of the credibility of the UN is insignificant? It is probably the international news story of the decade with repurcussions that will last a generation. You think US fiscal policy should get more attention instead?

Ooh Nearly missed this bit. It sounds like you are the one who is crying here? No? You and packetloss make a great team. The fact that you both resorted to typing this trash demostrates your own insecurities and/or immaturity. Grow up.

I can take insults, but the statement that I am king of the "US deserved Sept. 11th line of thought" is bull!@#$%^&*. One of my main points here has always been that much American foreign policy sucks and actually encourages terrorism against the US. I use the decision to invade Iraq as a classic example of how and why US foreign policy sucks and how and why it encourages more terrorism. I challenge you to quote any post where I have ever said or inferred that US deserved Sept 11. I don't have a clue what you are referring to, but that is a bit of an over-reaction don't you think? That is one way to break the imp!@#$%^&*e but it is not 'logical'. Your proposed solution means that a Chinese individual's vote is worth less than that of a German or Venezuelan. But nobody ever said democracy was perfect.

Anyone without serious intellectual impairment can highlight text and click the quote button in just a few seconds. You watch too much of the wrong kind of television. Nice. You are much more skillful at potty-mouth insults than you are at political discussion. You probably have a valid point here. Too bad you drowned it out with a paragraph of schoolyard insults.

You want to talk about something else? Start a new thread ....

US economic and foreign policy affects just about everyone. If you can't see how, you mustn't have a television set - and you must never read a newspaper. Have you ever heard the phrase "when the US sneezes, the world catches a cold"? Most countries are indirectly affected. Is that why you are here? The US steps on more nuts than any other country atm. GWB seemed to care. he spent a lot of time and effort trying to con other countries into supporting the US hairbrained plans for Iraq. I don't think you are pissing anyone off here, but you are giving a good demonstration of the kind of at-*BAD WORD*-ude that makes people feel like flying jet planes into your buildings. GG.

Only the intelligence agencies of coalition countries said that. I think that the agencies may have been manipulated or coerced (consciously or unconciously). Perhaps even intelligence analysts will believe anything if their political masters say something often enough? Obviously they also used very poor quality intelligence. Remember the PhD thesis that Blair used? LOL That isn't what Hans Blix said. Blix said he could go wherever he wanted, whenever he wanted without alerting the Iraqis. The idea that he couldn't was perpetuated by coalition governments that were intent on invading Iraq regardless of the weapons program. their hidden agenda was regime change. WMDs was the cover.

Nah. Bush will provide us with plenty more !@#$%^&*ups that will keep us occupied for years to come.

So, explain to me how something goes from a fiery bolten ball of lava to sitting on his !@#$%^&* typing on a computer about to go to class? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know. I don't know How Krispy Kreme make their donuts taste so yummy either? Perhaps God makes them? Perhaps if you asked an astronomer, a physicist, , a geologist, a biologist, an anthropologist, and a few engineers you might start to get a sensible answer to your question. Just because you, or I or the rest of the human race don't understand something doesn't make it a miracle.

The universe was not a fiery, molten ball when life appeared on Earth 4 billion years ago, 9 or 10 billion years after the big bang. A "pinnacle to reach" is not a God. * When I was a kid I wanted to be a train driver. Train drivers are not Gods. * Buddha was not a God. I think people use 'God' as a catch all to explain anything that is unknowable and some things that are just unknown. The way christians use nature's complexity as 'evidence' of divine intervention confirms this in my mind. Complexity is explainable as the result of 13 billion years of cosmic evolution. Complexity is not evidence of intervention by a God.

The weapons inspectors said that they did not think that there were stockpiles of weapons in Iraq. They thought that Iraq had largely been disarmed. There was a process in place to deal with Iraq. The difference between your analogy and the situation in Iraq is that you think Bush was mistaken about the threat level. I think the evidence suggests that he was manipulative and dishonest.

The philosophy of science gives me a headache. Don't mean to pick on you Dr...I've had a problem with a few points raised by just about everybody and just decided to chime in here.... Some random points (take them or leave them): * What is the difference between learning and discovery? * A constructivist would probably argue that science is a creation of man. * The thing that science and christianity have in common is an understanding that not everything is knowable. * Religion is not God created. Some religions don't have a God. I think one of the biggest confusions here is between Christianity and religion. * The human eye isn't perfect. If it was 'designed', our vision could have been designed better. The same goes for the rest of the body. I've read plausable articles that explain the evolution of the human eye. * I think your watch analogy could easily be used against you. If I had never seen a watch before, and had never seen any similar technology, I might think that it was designed by a higher being - maybe aliens, or maybe some kind of deity. That is exactly the !@#$%^&*umption that you are making about the human eye. You don't understand it or how it was created so it must be evidence of God. Fiddlesticks. * Christianity is built on faith. Faith requires no proof. It just is. Hence no-one will ever be able to disprove the existance of God. But by the same token you will never be able to disprove the existance of one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eaters. That doesn't mean they exist.

I agree. True. I thought he was dangerous before he was elected. I was right. Not really. I supported his stance on the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I didn't support the way he handled North Korea. I was open minded. I absolutely despised the way he lied to the world about Iraq. I don't know enough about Bosnia or Kosovo to comment. It didn't affect me or my country as much as the war in Iraq has. If someone starts a thread about Bosnia/Kosovo I might read up on it. I do. Iraq is one issue in a world full of difficult and intractable problems. I agree. It is a perfect example of his arrogance and incompetence. My opinion of him is based on his words and his actions. Heh. I'd argue that Iraq has become nothing more than Bush's politial persona. No. I am not trying to defend the rights of a helpless country at all. The rights of Iraqis were trampled on before and after the invasion. If anything, I believe that the rights of Iraqis are secondary. Global security and stability is more important to me than Iraqi rights and freedoms. But setting aside that, I think that the invasion of Iraq potentially makes life worse for Iraqis. Time will tell whether i am right or wrong on that. I hope I'm wrong. Trust me, I do.

WTF? I don't understand how you can justify a statement like that? Anyway, Bacchus already said what needed to be said.

Why does it have to be an either/or choice all the time with you? Perhaps Americans and terrorists both have some valid points? Just because both have valid points does not mean that their actions are justifiable. The invasion of Iraq was wrong, and so is terrorism.

I haven't heard much about TBL since I first heard the term in the late 90s. It seems pretty hard to find good information about it on the web. A good definition that I found is: The triple bottom line is a popular way of understanding sustainability through economic, environmental and social accountability. The idea proposes that an organisation's license to operate in society comes not just from satisfying stakeholders through improved profits (the economic bottom line), but by improving its environmental and social performance. I think that this website is overly critical of the concept, but is worth reading: http://www.businessethics.ca/3bl/triple-bottom-line.pdf NAFTA sounds good in theory - especially for the US and Canada, but I worry about the impact on Mexico's poor. Eg: http://www.ksworkbeat.org/Globalization/Mexico/mexico.html My fear with most free trade deals is that they make it easier for the big fish to eat the little fish. This is sometimes a good thing economically, but what about socially and environmentally? I'm sure that David Suzuki has said something about this. Perhaps there is advantage in embracing small scale differences and diversity for the sake of social and environmental sustainability? The best advice that I can give you though is to look at the subject of "sustainable development". This is probably the trendy way of combining economic, social and environmental considerations. I guess you might call it TBL for governments.

Have you heard of triple bottom line accounting? In my opinion, every business and every government and non-government organisation should consider the economic, social and environmental consequences of their activities. It should be a basic corporate and social responsibility. Governments should enforce this with regulation and/or incentives, but sometimes they don't - especially in the third world. I think that advocates of globalisation and free trade want as little regulation as possible. That will enable business to capitalise on opportunities more quickly and make more money. They are less interested in the social and environmental implications !@#$%^&*ociated with this. There already is a 'partial' globalisation process. The EU is an example...the North American Free Trade agreement is another. There are plenty of other examples.

I think that we should all be very suspicious of an article on globalisation written by the IMF. I think that you will get an entirely different take on the policy from Greenpeace for example. Globalisation has advantages, especially for first world economies, but often has a negative impact on third world economies and cultures - and on the environment. Two points: * Globalisation of agricultural trade has probably contributed to famines in Africa. * From an environmental viewpoint, globalisation could encourage excessive production and consumption. If we want environmental sustainability we should encourage local production and minimise consumption (ie the exact opposite of globalisation). The IMF wouldn't like less production and consumption because they are interested in economics. I'm more interested in quality of life. Without a doubt, wealth can improve the quality of life of citizens in 3rd world countries, but only if there are checks and balances in the system that ensure equal opportunity, social support and environmental sustainability. I don't think there are enough checks and balances in place at the moment - especially in the poorer parts of the world.

Bull. Just to demonstrate the point, here is what, in 2002, the "Women Against Military Madness" group described as "eight reasons why we should not invade Iraq": 1. It cannot be justified. There has been no attack on the U.S. and Iraq has not been linked to 9/11. 2. The CIA confirmed that it has "no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the U.S. in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al-Qaida or related terrorist groups" (New York Times, Feb. 2, 2002). 3. Thousands of innocent civilians would be killed and it would cost tens of billions of our tax dollars. 4. It would require a long-term military occupation and would undermine international cooperation. 5. It could result in the destabilization of Iraq and the whole of the Middle East. 6. It would stir up more anti-American feeling, which could result in more terrorist attacks. 7. Use of the doctrine of preemption (attack them before they attack us) would set a very dangerous precedent. 8. Such an attack would be a breach of international law and would undermine the UN charter. LOL! WTF?! W A M M score a touch down with 8 out of 8 correct !@#$%^&*umptions about the impact of an Iraqi invasion. W A M M got it right and you and GWB got it wrong????? LOL Who needs Rumsfeld or Powell or Rice when the US has expert analysts like W A M M. Seriously though, every thinking person feared that Iraq would be destabilised and that terrorist attacks would increase as a result of the Iraqi invasion. Every thinking person was correct.

The US Department of State admits that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq and you still don't believe it? C'mon. The only person you are kidding is yourself. That is probably correct, to a point. I'm sure Hussein didn't want to destabilise his own leadership. Al Qaeda wants to establish a theocracy in the middle east. That is clearly not what Hussein wanted. Now that Hussein has been removed from power, Al Qaeda and every other wannabe islamic tyrant sees an opportunity in Iraq. An opportunity to wrest power. And an opportunity to embarr!@#$%^&* the US and the west. Because the consequences flowing from his removal could be worse than the consequences of leaving him there. Because Bush Jnr had a bee in his bonnet. True up to a point, but to use a lame analogy: If I cut someone off in traffic and they honk their horn at me, I didn't cause that either. Or did I?

This Canadian dude isn't a terrorist. If we deny any individual their basic human rights then we are no better than the terrorists themselves. If we (the west) want the moral high-ground then we should not lower ourselves to the standards of terrorists.

Its late and I'm tired Interesting article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/reme.../20010928a.html

Bye Recombo PS I agree with A Soldier

I am undecided on this issue, but I can't see any reason why a gay couple should have less legal rights or privileges than a heterosexual couple. Where is the moral dillema? What is the threat to society? And what perverted logic says that same-sex marriage will lead to "finding rights in the slaying of each other"? This is an uninformed and biggoted statement if ever I've read one.

If he was guilty he wouldn't have been returned to Canada. Roughing up people to extract information is a violation of human rights - no matter whether we are dealing with suspected spies or terrorists or soldiers. This dude should have been dealt with by the US legal system. This wasn't a Syrian matter. It wasn't even a military matter.