MonteZuma

When I'm pissed I don't usually log on to a political forum and talk about the philosophy of freedom, but there ya go. Anyway...As some Greek dude once said...."After the crucifixion there is the resurrection...." If freedom is 'the opportunity to exercise choice', then I disagree with the 'conservation of energy' analogy. You don't always need to give something up to have more freedom. Wealth and technology for example give us the freedom to do things we couldn't do before and travel to places we couldn't go before without 'necessarily' taking anything away. Do you really have less overall opportunity to exercise choice if airport security decides to frisk you? You can still choose whether or not to go through the gate. You can still choose whether or not you want to continue your journey. You can still buy a cup of coffee inside or outside the terminal. I don't think airport security is curtailing your freedom. Airport security is a way of ensuring that your freedom to enter the airport or travel safely is not impeded. Airport security gives you freedom - it doesn't take it away. Does the right to bear arms give you more freedom? I don't have such a right, but I am something like 10 times less likely to be killed in a homocide or accidental shooting as you are. I'd say that gives me the edge as far as freedom is concerned. Some kinds of security measures deliver freedoms and others take some away. I don't believe that there is a trade-off or corelation of any kind. Another way of looking at this might be to compare rights and responsibilities. In that case I think that there might be a corelation.

I don't know about tort law reform. But I realise that many compensation claims are ridculous. For example some dude here won a big payout because he dived into a sandbank at the beach. The argument was that there should have been signs or something. Sheesh. However.....I worry about plans to cap payouts or restrict victim's access to legal help. If I am ever injured through someone elses negligence I want to be compensated. If I am seriously injured by someone else I want to be compensated big money. I want everything that was taken away from me to be returned in cash or kind. The key to this is firstly to make sure every health and other important expense is covered immediately. That includes things like mortgage payments. Then, for permanent injury, make sure that financial compensation is spread out over the life of the victim. That way payment can be stopped if health improves, new effective treatments fix the problem, or the claim was found to be false or exaggerated. Spreading out the payments also prevents a situation whereby the victim goes on a spending spree buying luxury items and then leeches of the government for the rest of their life. All of this needs to be accompanied by robust laws and legal processes that make sure that cases are dealt with quickly and efficiently - without the opportunity for lawyers to rort the system. Doctors should be chosen by the court - not by lawyers. Compensation might include giving the victim a job that suits their injury rather than just giving cash. Sincerely, Captain Obvious PS I hardly think Canada and the UK are socialist countries. Capitalist countries with a social conscience might be more correct.

Health care should be free and should be paid for out of taxes. Everyone needs it. In a wealthy country, nobody should be denied basic health care - not even hobos. There are ways to get people out of hospitals. One is to make queues for cases which aren't emergencies, another is to beef up private heath care options and opportunities.... Have a medical insurance levy and make everyone who can afford it pay it. Have private health insurance for extras, like choice of doctor, private room, etc. Extend national health cover to include visits to private doctors and allow doctors to bulk bill the national health insurance scheme for payment - to get people out of hospitals for minor emergencies. Include some medicines in the health insurance scheme too, especially for the disadvantaged. OMG I think I solved the health care crisis!

?

Wow. A point of agreement.

If -*BAD WORD*- goes down it might not go down in Israel. It might go down in NY or Washington DC or Shanksville PA or Nairobi or Bali or Yemen. We all have an interest in resolving this one.

(1) Israel...patient???? WTF? Have a look at the history of Israel since 1948. It is a history of aggression and conquest. Not a history of patience. (2) No. It is because a people have been dispossessed. The wall is not an armistice. (3) Which thumb did you suck that 30% guess from? It can and will make the situation worse. It isn't already built. Palestinian houses are still being destroyed. If Israel wanted peace they would tear the wall down and remove settlers from the occupied territories. Then they should negotiate about what else to do with the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people.

(1) Wrong. Injustices like the wall fuel the continued anger and hatred. (2) What evidence do you have of that? The Jews never forgot that God told Abraham that Israel was their promised land. The Palestinians wont forget a friggin wall built on their homeland. They will be reminded of Israel's land grab every friggin day. (3) The UN can only help if both sides co-operate. Israel won't co-operate because it is less interested in peace and more interested in control. The UN isn't a peace-maker. (4) They are blowing themselves up for a reason, and, at least in their mind, they are 'making it count'. (5) Are you serious? This is all about feelings of right and wrong, justice and injustice. There won't be peace until these issues are addressed. Fairly and squarely.

(1) I realise that. But it is directly relevant in the minds if the Palestinians who live in these areas and in the shadow of the wall. (2) The same way they justify it now. (3) I'm not so sure. The wall does not surround everything. In any case it is not up to the Israelis to draw a line in the sand. Both sides need to do it - and agree on it - to secure a peace. (4) The difference between our views seems to be that you think that the palestinians should be cool with that and I think that they should not and will not. (5) Pretty much. The UN isn't irrelevant. The UN isn't perfect. It never was. But it is the best ins!@#$%^&*ution we have. It is foolish to claim that the UN is stupid. If it is weak it is because some member states don't support it. (6) Terrorists aren't crazy nutcases. Fact. They become crazed. (7) We don't need to let people die. We need to address the issues that make people become terrorists. Walls don't do that. ( The wall won't bring peace. It brings hostility and resentment and indignation. The blood feud will continue.

No it wasn't and no they weren't.

The Antlantic Ocean didn't stop attacks by terrorists on the US. The barrier that is in place needs to be an intelligent one. I'd suggest a psychological barrier. Not pessimistic. Realistic. There will be no solution to this problem in the short term. The problem needs to be managed. The world needs to work towards a solution but not expect one in the immediate future. But the wall results in the annexation of palestinian territory and the creation of ghettos of poor and dispossesed people (these are probably the types of people who join Hamas!). The wall represents a policy of apartheid. It isn't a solution, it's a land grab. It is further abuse of Palestinian rights and freedoms. It isn't leverage because the Palestinians don't want it. And do you really think that a concrete wall will stop the Israelis interfering in palestinian affairs? The Palestinians see it as offensive. The Israelis used it to take more of their territotory and hinder the movement of law abiding citizens. It is not defensive at all in their minds. Says you. They still have tanks and helicopters and planes and their troops will still go where they want when they want. They have given up nothing. The Palestinians have been forced to surrender land and freedom of movement. It isn't a border. It is a wall. ...and parts of the west side used to be Palestinian turf. Turf that was stolen despite condemnation by the UN. No. It will take less. They've straigtened out the border and locked down millions of innocent people. It won't be harder for Israel to control Palestinian destiny...it will be easier. How about listen to the UN? That'd be a good start. Get the -*BAD WORD*- out of the occupied territories. Support the Palestinian Administration in sensible ways. Listen to ordinary Palestinians. When Palestinians think that the Israeli (and US!)government and people care about what happens to them, support for groups like Hamas will drop off (this is the psychological barrier). Treat Palestinians like animals in a cage and you will breed terrorists. Its a long term plan but it will work. A wall won't work. Better ideas are already on the table (and I don't just mean my brilliant suggestions!). Israel doesn't support them because they mean that Israel will have to give up what they have stolen. In any case, if a proposed 'solution' is bad then it is bad. It doesn't matter if there is nothing else suggested. The wall makes matters worse in the region. It is not an improvement in relations or a way of combatting terrorism. It breeds terrorism and disposses ordinary citizens. It is bad policy. And...do you really think that it is up to us to solve this right here and now anyway? It doesn't matter what we say in this forum. In the long term, we need a solution where both sides can say they thought it up themselves. Both sides need to feel that they are winners. The wall makes everyone feel like rats in a cage. It can't work. If you had the capacity to see this from the Palestinian pov you would realise that. Fortunately most of the UN is a little more empathetic than you.

Nice website. Clearly demonstrates the Bush Snr wasn't as dumb as Bush Jr.

I disagree. The moves towards peace on both sides have been half-arsed. It is a lot more complicated than that. On-going residential development and settlement in the occupied territories for example. Israel needs to negotiate with Mr and Mrs Joe Average. They need to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Palestinians. Hamas is a terrorist organisation and needs to be treated as such. Hamas are evil. Not sure what you are saying here but I'm pretty sure I disagree 100%. The UN has made some ground rules which are being ignored by Israel, the US and some other recalcitrant states. A very logical solution strongly in favour of Israel that won't stop terrorism. I'd try something else. A wall wouldn't be included in the deal. Hamas is only part of the problem. The Palestinian Authority already gets a fair bit of aid and there are claims that this isn't put to proper use. The place is a mess - not just because of Hamas. Israel do not want Palestine to be self-sufficient. They recently shut down Gaza International Airport and a sea port that was under construction - claiming that they were transit points for terrorists. Israels policy - in response to the terror attacks - is to keep the Palestinians under their thumb. What they don't realise is that the lack of freedom that the Palestinians have is what is fuelling the terrorism. What we need to see improvement in the Arab/Israeli issue is a change of policy from Israel. They are the ones with the power to make change.

A sandstorm in Antartica?

Nice post GL. A breath of fresh air.

Dr Worthless wrote crap like this: ...being in a debating compe!@#$%^&*ion with you is like being flogged with warm lettuce... It gets a little boring after a while. You keep introducing new arguments with more faults and incorrect and unsupported !@#$%^&*umptions than before. Responding to them is easy but tedious. My response: The US did some great things in WW2 and made Europe and parts of Asia a better and safer place. What the US has done since is make the whole -*BAD WORD*-ed world more dangerous. That point has been demonstrated ad infinitum. By the way. Your contribution to WW2 amounts to zero. The way you say that 'we did this' and 'we did that' is ludicrous. You are some loser sitting a keyboard typing out political debate in a gamer forum just like the rest of us. You aren't a WW2 hero. You're a loser with Internet access and an insult to anybody from any country that really has pulled their finger out and put their life on the line for someone elses freedom. Wake up. You're dreaming.

If by harsh you mean misguided and wrong - then yes. If by torn up you mean that it was full of errors then yes - but I can't be bothered tearing up each sentence one by one this time - so I'll just make a general observation..... You have shown that you have very little understanding of history or your place in the world. That isn't surprising. I blame your education system. It churns out great geeks, but very bad historians and policy analysts. The US would not have won the war in Europe without allies. For example, I recently learned that Germany might have gotten the atom bomb before the US if it wasn't for a handful of Norwegian resistance fighters. The Russian and British effort in WW2 was inspiring and courageous. To belittle the efforts of smaller countries is not a surprising thing for an American to do. You are horribly misguided and people like you are the reason that the US is hated by so many. You are part of the problem, but I suspect that you can't see it because you are surrounded by so many other misguided and ignorant individuals. You would think that Americans would have learned something from September 11 (and Viet Nam for that matter), but as time goes by it is obvious that many of you have learned nothing.

(1) No. You still don't get it. 10,000 Iraqi civilians and countless Iraqi soldiers died. (2) It is heartless and arrogant to think that it is morally neutral to kill 10,000 Iraqi civilians and countless Iraqi soldiers just to get Hussein out of power. That is a tragic waste of life. The ensuing Chaos in the country is not morally neutral. Ghandi wouldn't have approved. (3) Keep telling yourself that. (4) No. The US is trying to dig itself out of the -*BAD WORD*-pile it created. (5) No. He can't. He won't be easily excused for this one. (6) See (3). (7) Yeah French are strange, but in the case of Iraq, the French have been proven right. It is the US have been proven to be the nutcases. ( People naturally distrust the Iraqis. The people also naturally think the French are strange. The fact that these countries get a -*BAD WORD*- of a lot more sympathy than the US, despite 9/11, demonstrates how utterly inept the current US administration is at managing foreign policy issues and threats. The French government offers thinking people a refreshingly honest and sensible interpretation of the Iraq issue. I used to think the French government was the epitomy of evil with things like nuclear testing, colonialism and the bombing of the rainbow warrior etc, but Iraq has given me new found respect for the French. The US has stuffed up big time. (9) Only if the US wants to lose even more respect.

(1) Bacchus doesn't sound like a radical extremist to me. GWB is more of a radical extremist than Bacchus. (2) So are we. (3) Not with serious intent. GWB always wanted an invasion of Iraq. Anyway - so what if the diplomacy takes 10 or 20 years? Where was the imminent threat to the US or anyone else? (4) You don't know what it is to get down on your knees and beg. The US doesn't have to beg for anything - except respect. (5) The US has never been the UN's lap dog. The US goes into these countries for strategic reasons. Why would it be in the US' best interests for Iraq to annex Kuwait? If it was, then the US would have supported the invasion. That is what the US does. (6) In most cases, the same countries that supported the US in the first Gulf War war also the biggest supporters in the invasion. Invading a country to change a regime is not the same as liberating an occupied country. Can you not see the difference? There were dozens of flaws in the US' justification. Americans love a quick military fix for complicated political problems - that is why your government stuffs up so much. (7) Your government won't get them until it becomes less arrogant.

I've heard a bit about it. Apparently its a big deal - but I can't understand why. People are whining that it hasn't had much publicity - but why should it? Shouldn't people make up their minds based on policies rather than hype?

(1) I thought I had already explained it. (2) The part of the resolution I am refering to was the part stating that Iraq hasn't put forth every effort it could to comply with the terms of the ceasefire. Since Iraq was in breach of the terms, the ceasefire would be null and void. (This ceasefire being what ended the first gulf war.) Since the ceasefire was void, armed action COULD be taken against Iraq. (3) This isn't a vote FOR agressive action or AGAINST agressive action, it's simply the UN security councle saying "Hey, if you wanna go -*BAD WORD*- their -*BAD WORD*- up, you're more than welcome too" (4) Read the resolutions. The terms of the ceasefire to the first gulf war demanded that Saddam comply with all demands of the UN. If Saddam refused at any point during the process, he would be in breach of contract which would render the ceasefire null and void. It's all there in the UN resolutions. (The UN resolution is #687) (5) ... we had every right to invade if need be back in 1998, because Iraq was in breach of the ceasefire. (AS said in resolution 1205) (6) Oh, the modern day hitler was more compliant than he has been! Anything is more compliant than what *was* in place, a 4 year stint of allowing NO inspections what-so-ever. All of a sudden its now the UN inspectors that are the bad guys, picking on little ole Saddam. None of this conversation is about the recent invasion.. all of this pertains to Clintons right to invade if he had chosen to do so. (1) You haven't. You have made a series of false !@#$%^&*umptions though. (2) Please quote the part of the 1998 resolution that refers to the ceasefire. Please also quote the part of the 1998 resolution that makes you think that armed action could/should be taken against Iraq by the UN. Nothing of the sort is mentioned. You are confusing statements made by the US government with resolutions made by the UN. Your government wants you to be confused. The ceasefire mentioned in UNSCR 687 is a ceasefire between Iraq and Kuwait and member states that supported Kuwait. It is not a ceasefire bewteen Iraq and the UN as a whole. UNSCR 687 does not say that military action is an inevitable consequence of non-compliance. Your government wants you to think that it does. (3) The resolutions say nothing of the sort. Russia, China and France disapproved of such action. (4) I have. Please re-read UNSCR 687 (Linky). It does not say that the cease-fire is rendered null and void in the event of non-compliance. The reason that it doesn't is because of Russia, China, France and probably a few other countries who opposed military strikes. (5) There was no 'right' to invade. The UN did not authorise an attack. None of the resolutions suggest that military action after 1991 is/was authorised by the UN. In fact if you want to take this to the extreme, some of the resolutions point to the sovereignty of Iraq. This almost suggests that an invasion is inappropriate, but that could be reading too much into it. (6) Do you seriously think that it is unreasonable to suggest that some of the inspection teams were infiltrated by intelligence agencies such as the CIA? And do you really think that it is unreasonable for a leader of *any* country to object to that? The inspection teams were there to do a job for the UN - not for the CIA. Do some research on Scott Ritter. His views are very interesting.

(1) Clinton's action was unilateral. It doesn't give us any insight into the thinking of any other government at all. (2) As I explained, it was not a vote to allow the use of force. Your government has misled you. Read the resolution for yourself -->here<--. As I explained, there was no change of heart in 2002/2003, but some members were encouraged by the reports given by the weapons and nuclear inspectors. (3) The US and Israel are not 100% compliant with UN resolutions either. So? This alone doesn't justify an invasion. (4) He wasn't completely compliant with Blix. But he was more compliant with him than others. He didn't trust some of the other teams - probably with good reason (eg Ritter and Butler). (5) Indeed. Show me where it says that the use of force is innevitable or automatic.

There was no change in ideology. The USA, and to a lesser extent the UK were the only countries pushing war. In fact, back in November 1998 Russia and China insisted that resolutions did not mention the use of force to make Iraq comply. Russia, Germany and Turkey said at the beginning of 2002 that they would not support military action without UN backing. Russia, China, France and to a lesser extent Germany always wanted to avoid a war, and were uncomfortable with other military interventions. The most encouraging 'change' was that Hussein allowed unprededented access to inspectors. Inspectors could travel wherever and whenever they wanted without alerting the Iraqis. Consistently they found nothing to warrant a war, but they found plenty to warrant continued inspections. What is it about the Blix and El Baradei reports that you don't understand? The one criticism that I think can be laid at many nations is that some who supported the resolutions did not adequately assist in maintaining the military force that was stationed in the region. Coupled with sanctions, the military force was one of the biggest incentives that Hussein had to comply and was primarilly comprised of US and UK forces, although a few other small nations were also involved. Hussein probably would not have complied if the military force, including the naval blockade, marines, no-fly zone and strategic air strikes were not there.

Sorry...can't help myself.....I need to flog this dead horse a bit more... The pope was against the war on Iraq. The pope and theerfore the catholic church favoured a diplomatic resolution using the United Nations. Clearly Bush is not 'helping the church'. Sounds like a double standard to me. If you are a catholic and yet you support GWB and the invasion of Iraq then apparently you have more faith in GWB than you do in your God - or at least more faith in GWB than in your religion. How do you sleep at night if you really believe that if you don't support the pope's views then you have 'no business' in the religion?

Is there a reason for changing names instead of just picking a new nick? Post counts?