Current US Administration

[Gambit]

SciFi, Everybody, chill. If you'll read TFA you will see a line that says:

"We are carefully reviewing disclosure procedures and criteria concerning any nuclear information that could be misused by terrorists," said FBI agent Lirpa Sloof.

Spell that agent's name backwards, then go look at a calendar. Sheesh.

(But I ordered a copy anyway. Been looking for an excuse...)

[SiFi]

Originally Posted by Gambit

SciFi, Everybody, chill. If you'll read TFA you will see a line that says:

Spell that agent's name backwards, then go look at a calendar. Sheesh.

(But I ordered a copy anyway. Been looking for an excuse...)

Well, crap. I'll say it, I overreacted, and didn't pay attention. However, the camel's back remains broken.

Originally Posted by Raiyven

He has a point. Would another, completely different candidate had a different response to 9/11? Or, would another, completely different candidate really made any difference since the 2004 election?

And like he (and I) said, there's no guarantee things would've been any different with someone else winning the presidency, and again as we've both said, if you don't have the support of Congress there isn't a great deal you can do. Yes, Bush as a person is not very intelligent. But at the same time, can you tell me definitely that Edwards wouldn't have done the same things he has? There's always the chance that he might not have gone into Iraq after Afghanistan. But Afghanistan, as a reactionary measure to 9/11, could be argued as a sure bet.

And any chance to have had real information and the possibility of not being lied into a war is better than what actually happened. I agree on you with Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Raiyven

And on the point I made on censorship: yes, those are regional implementations, this I understand. What I should have clarified was that the majority of those texts were banned for unsavoury content as would be seen under Christian morality. Ours is NO LESS a Christian state than the one to the south.

No, both countries are secular states, that both happen to have a high proportion of christians living in them. The main difference is that Canada doesn't have a mad zealot trying to remake the country in the bible's violent, perverted image.

Originally Posted by Raiyven

Your political views aside, friggin Jester was over there, man! Jeez.

I'm glad he's back and all right, but the reality of war is that people die. Just because someone we care about was over there in the middle of it doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the dangers of his situation.

Originally Posted by Raiyven

And in some ways it's not like our peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan is going remarkably well. The only difference is that I don't think we have a majority of the population pissed off at us as well.

That's certainly a better situation than in Iraq, though yes, we are having problems. Thing is, at least there we're operating under the auspices of the UN. After all, dying in a house fire is a hideous fate. Does that mean we should never discuss fire safety, never think of preventative measures, lest mere mention of it bring it about?

Originally Posted by Raiyven

You're talking about problems in Congress as if it's the only political structure that has any corruption. I don't even *need* to point out the fallacy there. As immaterial and subjective as the concept is, selfishness is simply a human trait. Again, look at home: sponsorship scandal? Was that not a pet project in which large amounts of money were re-routed somewhere?

With a paper trail, and with accountability. This is 4 billion disappearing with not trace at all. Plus many billions more lost to lack of oversight.

Originally Posted by Raiyven

I'm having a hard time viewing much of your argument with academic objectivity because some of it is rooted in narrow bias. I'm not trying to ignore the things you're presenting, but rather that they are not unique to the US, and just on speculation there is no guarantee that, given 9/11 as an circumstance, reactionary measures following would have been any different.

Again, any possiblity that maybe something different might have happened, as opposed to what we can look back on and see did happen.

Yes, I am biased. I am biased against war in any form, against killing in any form. War is never a good answer to any question ever, and should never be seen as more than an evil that has become necessary through the failure of diplomacy.

Originally Posted by Raiyven

And on Iraq again: say tomorrow the Admin says 'alright, thats it, we're done here'. You think demobilization will happen in a day? Besides, it's partially evident that radical elements may have some degree of popular support. The US leaves, you have a bloody coup, civilians die, and the whole region destabilizes further. Yes, I think it's awful that people are dying over there, of all nationalities. But with a US-backed government in place there, again, while not entirely stable it is still FAR more predictable than some radical ass in a top hat that would take its place should the US demobilize.

No, but every day that the groundwork is not layed is one more day that the troops over there need to be vulnerable.

The longer the US stays there, the more popular the radical elements could become. When the US leaves, there'll be a bloody coup anyway.

[Raiyven]

Dammit Gryph why'd you have to go post while I'm writing my non-catchy, long-winded response?

Originally Posted by SiFi

No, both countries are secular states, that both happen to have a high proportion of christians living in them. The main difference is that Canada doesn't have a mad zealot trying to remake the country in the bible's violent, perverted image.

Sorry that was the point I was making, I didn't phrase it correctly. However, despite a notable difference that Christianity is not intimately tied to national identity (I hear God Help Canada more than God Bless), that religion is still closely associated with the ruling party and figure.

The greatest example is the Conservative attitudes against same-sex union. In this manner, though same-sex union was ruled constitutional across (most if not all of) the country, the Conservatives pushed to reopen the issue.

"During the election campaign, Harper promised to hold a free vote in the House of Commons on whether Parliament should revisit the issue...The motion calls on the government to "introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.''"

Source: CBC News, 7 December 2006

Why reopen the debate if not to challenge it? Call me crazy, but there is no sense in reopening an issue you support. And 'traditional' as a descriptor is horribly loaded. However, even at that time, opposition parties were voting against reopening the issue: "But the majority of Liberals are expected to oppose the motion and both the Bloc and NDP are forcing their members to vote against it..."

Now, you could view this in the idealistic context of progressive thinking, or the slightly more realistic context political maneuvering by the opposing parties. The Liberals and NDP, as the party that passed Bill C-38 and the socially progressive party respectively, have the most intrinsic desires to oppose it. The Bloc... honestly I don't know, but it's really immaterial. However, thankfully:

"The government's motion to repeal gay marriage was ultimately defeated 175-123 last December and after the vote, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters: "I don't see reopening this question in the future."

Harper had previously agreed to leave the matter settled regardless of the vote.

Source: The Globe and Mail, 2 April 2007

I had the pro/anti discussion with people at work and we could find no practical reason to be against it. It is not any unfathomable secret that Bible+Gay=Do Not Want. If we do not have a practical reason of state for being against it, tell me what's left? Arguments on the structure of a marriage are derived from Christian belief that it can only be between a man and woman.

Now, I won't succumb to simplistic anti-Christian urges in citing the outside possibility of Harper's cancellation of daycare programs as being a small-'c' step backwards. If I were to look at it solely through an unacademic eye without definitive proof I could argue that it inevitably forces a parent to care for their child directly, and that it carries the implication of keeping the mother at home in that capacity. This is, however, circumstantial and entirely subject to my personal opinion over objective analysis supported by definitive proofs, so I won't stand behind this argument that I have heard a number of times without any real point.

And I wouldn't go throwing the word zealot around just yet. What you have to remember first is that God and Christianity have *long* been a part of the American political ethnos; 'God Bless America' has been a catchphrase for an eon. While yes, church and state as institutions are separate, Christianity and state are not always. We see this here at home. While Bill C-38 was being argued over the first time, a public opinion poll revealed that "Slightly more than half – 52 per cent – of the 1,203 respondents said they disagreed with the Liberal government's plan to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples."

Source: CBC News, 10 April 2005

Yes, I'm well aware there are 34 or so million people living in this country. Yes, I'm also well aware of the fallibility of polls. However, what's still telling is that with respect to available information (though I haven't had the time to pull up academic discourse) there is ample evidence to *strongly suggest, though not definitively prove* (as I will not fully stand behind an argument without appropriate time to research it) that conservatism vis-a-vis Christian values are as much a part of decisions made on domestic policy here as in the US.

Originally Posted by SiFi

I'm glad he's back and all right, but the reality of war is that people die. Just because someone we care about was over there in the middle of it doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the dangers of his situation.

I never suggested we should. I was more hoping that you would take that as a hint that he and his who are on this board (though not lately. Where are you, Jester and Mrs Jester?) might or might not appreciate the trivialization of 'foreign policy' as it came at him at 1200m/s during his tour of duty. Am I telling you to shut up? No, just that there are better places to yell and scream.

N.B.: If Jester shows up and tells us he doesn't care, disregard this statement.

Originally Posted by SiFi

Yes, I am biased. I am biased against war in any form, against killing in any form. War is never a good answer to any question ever, and should never be seen as more than an evil that has become necessary through the failure of diplomacy.

From your initial post this wasn't abundantly clear. I was seeing a very general reinvented wheel of 'boo America'. You referred to war once as, 'the war'. Hey, I share your sentiments just the same. The bias I was referring to was moreso me looking at your first post as profoundly anti-American rant where what you were presenting in some very notable ways is applicable to more than just one country.

Am I arguing with what you have said? No. Am I arguing with how you have presented it? Yes. Offer a solution like Nutz did with his mention of the UAE trying to get middle-eastern states together. While that in practice may not necessarily work, it's still an example of saying 'here is what is wrong, here is how we could improve things' over 'here is what is wrong, and goddammit, it's wrong'.

The moral of the story? Scrutinize your sources. Someone lock this thread, I have a 40-page undergraduate thesis project to be working on ;D